Camera recommendation?

[AiR]

Hello... 1st post here! And I'm going to try not to write a "which is the best camera" thread!

A friend is interested in starting photography and is wondering what camera (or type of camera) to get. She asked me for advice, and although I've dabbled a bit, I'm no expert.

She currently uses her phone, and an early digital point and shoot camera, and wants to upgrade. Mostly she takes landscapes. She'd also be interested in wildlife photography, although she has very little experience of it. She probably isn't going to take it on major trekking expeditions, so size and weight are not the primary considerations.

What would be the best type of camera to look at (eg DSLR v mirrorless)? Which specs should she be most interested in, for her use cases?

I have some Pentax K-mount lenses I could lend her to test out what focal length she finds useful, but that's a fairly minor consideration - my lenses predate autofocus days, so she'd probably want to buy her own anyway (if an interchangeable lens camera is what she goes for).

[Sandy Vongries]

IMHO, not a question that can be easily answered, even with more information.

What is her budget?  Does size and weight matter?  How interested is she in technology?  Would she want to transition from phone through a simpler point and shoot type camera?

Best advice would be to do some research on popular brands and models and go to a camera shop for a little hands on.  Rentals may still be available for trial.

Landscape / Wildlife - lenses for the latter large and expensive, best to settle on a system first.

 

[Tony Parsons]

Never used mirrorless, so cannot offer advice there, but if you have PK lenses, possibly an inexpensive Pentax DSLR (used/pre-owned/second-hand) to let her get the feel of it ? 

[AJG]

Used Pentax DSLRs, as Tony Parsons mentioned, could be a way to not spend a lot but try things out with a more sophisticated camera with your K mount lenses.  K 5 and K 3 bodies are very capable cameras and won't go for that much used in good condition.  If your friend gets seriously into wildlife photography Pentax may not have the optimum set of long lenses, but for landscape work, these cameras with appropriate lenses are quite able to provide good results.  And for landscape photography auto focus would be much less important.

[AiR]

Thanks for the quick replies!

Sandy, I suppose yes you're right in that the question is very general, and I suppose I need to work out which questions are the important ones she needs to think about. There is a branch of Wex not too far away, I'll suggest trying there to get a feel for them hands-on.

Tony and AJG, that's a good idea to look at second hand Pentax ones, and the K5/K3 certainly give me a starting point. If I use those as examples to talk through the pros and cons, it might help her narrow down what she's looking for a bit more.

[za33photo]

If She can afford it , how about looking at a Nikon CoolPix P900 , or P1000 , no pfaffing around with lens changes , and it should be capable of everything that She might want to do.

This camera should meet her needs for a good long while.

[AiR]

What's a good site for reviews? Amateurphotographer seems to have quite a few, it's much harder to know these days though with so much AI written junk around - is that fairly reliable?

[paddler4]

I think you should press for more details about your friend's preferences and goals. The best choices will depend on that. 

To take just one example: I shot for years with DSLRs, most recently the Canon 5D III  and IV, and now use the mirrorless R6 II. For my purposes, the R6 offers a number of advantages, such as much better AF tracking. (I do a lot of candids of kids.) However, most of the advantages would be of no use for landscape work. For that purpose, I would do fine with my old 5D IV. 

Another example is that what's best for wildlife photography is not what's necessarily best for landscape. Some wildlife photographers opt for smaller sensors, APS-C or micro four thirds, because the narrower angle of view with smaller sensors means that you can fill the frame with a shorter focal length lens, and hence less $$ and weight.

Weight is another issue. You generally won't find all that much difference in the weight of camera bodies with different size sensors, but when you add in the lenses, there is a big difference. In very approximate numbers, my full frame equipment weighs about twice what a comparable MFT OM Systems OM-1 Mark II system would weigh. However, the full frame sensor has other advantages relative to MFT.

One last thought: I would give serious thought to starting with relatively inexpensive equipment, maybe used equipment from a reputable dealer that offers a good warranty. That way, it's not a disaster if your friend, once she has some experience, decides that a different mix of equipment would be better. 

[AiR]

I think if I have some suggestions before I ask, it will help prompt discussion about which aspects are most important, and what the trade-offs are. I'm definitely going to ask for more details, yes, and also suggest trying some out in person before buying.

[AiR]

After a couple of chats, I think a bridge camera is going to be the way to go.

Does anyone have experience with the Sony Cybershot range, particularly the  HX400V? There is a dealer nearby that has one in stock for what seems a reasonable price, and I think it could be a good camera to start with, possibly with upgrading in mind. There seems to be a big range of bridge cameras with similar specs and prices, and little really to differentiatie them for a relative beginner?

[paddler4]

I don't know that camera other than its specs, but there is a lot to differentiate bridge cameras, including sensor size and zoom range, among other things.

That camera has an enormous (50x) optical zoom range. For that reason, most people would call it a "super zoom", not a "bridge camera". On the positive side, that's convenient, and the long end (1200 mm equivalent) would be useful for wildlife, although it's far too long to be useful for landscape. It's also hard to hand hold at that length, even with image stabilization. On the negative size, lenses with huge zoom ranges are generally optically not very good. High end zooms often have a range of 3x, and more than 5x is unusual in better lenses. Also, that camera has a very small sensor, 1/2.3", which is a limitation in terms of image quality and low light.

You will find lots of bridge cameras with both much smaller zoom ranges and larger sensors. A common larger size in bridge cameras is 1", and micro four thirds sensors can be found in some.  That smaller zoom wouldn't be sufficient for wildlife, but it would be better for landscapes.

I don't think you will find a camera that's good for both landscape and wildlife that doesn't have interchangeable lenses. So prioritizing between those two types of photography would be my first step.

[William Michael]

I am very familiar with the Canon Powershot range of cameras, having had and used six variants: so in relation to the 'type' of camera, my comment is - the Sony is a reasonable starting point for someone who doesn't really know what they want - that's my point - I think your friend is at the beginning of her journey.

That journey may be long or short, we don't know and neither does she; I think the best advice thus far is from paddler4, "I would give serious thought to starting with relatively inexpensive equipment, maybe used equipment from a reputable dealer that offers a good warranty. That way, it's not a disaster if your friend, once she has some experience, decides that a different mix of equipment would be better."

I suggest discarding all else and that she run with that advice - if she can afford the Sony at the good deal price and without getting into financial difficulty, then I suggest  go that way. That camera will teach her much, and if she applies herself she will know more precisely what she wants, within a year, or less if she really applies herself and for all those lessons she will pay only a few hundred USD, and still have a camera at the end.

It is practical experience she needs.

WW

[AiR]

Thanks for the input. And yes, I think you've hit the answer there with the last two replies: she isn't really sure what she wants. 2nd hand the Sony seems like a good deal, within budget, and as long as she's happy with the weight and feel hopefully it's a good start - without investing too much if it isn't suitable in some way.

[rodeo_joe1]

Maybe a bit late to add to this, but my one experience with a super zoom bridge camera (a Nikon Coolpix P100) was that it was nearly the same size as a DSLR, without delivering the image quality. It wasn't bad exactly, but the pictures just didn't have any 'bite' to them. I actually preferred the results I got from an old Kodak digital that had a much more limited zoom range - and I think I only paid about £10 for the used Kodak. 

I found the colour from the Nikon less pleasing than from the bargain Kodak. A matter of personal taste and preference I suppose. Although it goes to show that price and 'features' don't necessarily equate to the satisfaction one gets from a camera. 

What's most important to a beginner, IMO, is that the camera allows manual control of most features, so that the user can see exactly how things like aperture and shutter speed affect the result. Otherwise you might as well stick with a phone-cam, which can't be beat for convenience and pocketability. 

As the old adage goes: "The best camera is the one you have with you when a good picture presents itself."

Edited Thursday at 07:00 PM by rodeo_joe1

[Sandy Vongries]

I had a similar experience with a later model Nikon Super Zoom bridge camera.  Fortunately I bought it used from a reputable dealer and was able to return it.  For compact, the Leica D Lux and Ricoh GXR have been very useful.

[paddler4]

I agree with Rodeo Joe. There are lots of bridge cameras with 3x or 4x zoom ratios that will give good results and have a full set of controls so that the beginner can learn how to do things. I've been using SLRs of one sort or another since 1968, but I have a Lumix bridge camera that I sometimes carry when I don't want the bother of anything large. It's small enough to fit comfortably in a fanny pack, has a 24-700 mm equivalent zoom, a micro four thirds sensor (far large than the one in the super zoom in question, and a full set of easily accessed controls.