What 'more professional' camera should I save up for?

  • Thread starter SVX
  • 18 comments
  • 1,315 views
SVX

SVX

The White Comet
Premium
14,378
New Zealand
Wellington
Hello guys.


I've decided that one day, I would like to save up and buy a better camera. Problem is, I have absolutely no idea what camera I should get. All I want is a camera that I don't have to buy lenses for (way too technical, but I dunno if I do need to get them), and one that is basically idiot proof/a 12 year old can use it, because, well, I'm twelve. The reason is, is because I would like to take more detailed and more crisp photos that a point and shoot camera. This would be a little bit of an investment. It would also have to be durable.

Summed up:

  • Idiot proof/a twelve year old can use it.
  • Not too expensive (don't want to go around and think if I drop it, I'll be dropping and thosand dollar camera
  • Durable. I'm a twelve year old.
  • Don't have to buy lenses (too techinal unless someone can tell me wrong).



Could someone please give me a hand?



Thanks,






SVX.
 
Producing better pictures is far more about understanding how your camera works than the camera. At least based on what you said you want.

Interchangeable lens systems are pretty much the standard for "professional" cameras; the optics on fixed lens systems are generally poor, plus they often lack a higher quality sensor. Having access to manual controls is also important to producing solid work, which a glorified point and shoot will have, but they won't be fun or slick to use.

If you are set getting a dSLR like camera, probably something like a Canon G11 would work. But I've worked with one and while all the controls are there, they just aren't as accessible. And expect to spend several hundred dollars - at least for a cheap dSLR or a decent dSLR like camera.
 
Thanks for the reply. I've seen a advertisement on TV with this camera and a guy has a gallery, and people ask him questions (shutter speed, etc.) and for the shutter speed one, he simply says it was very fast, and clicks his fingers like that, even though it was a very fast picture (slow shutter speed). Have any of you seen that camera? It's kinda what I want.
 
How about an Olympus Pen E-P1 or a Sony Alpha NEX? I've heard a lot of nice things about those. It's basically an intermediate between a point-and-shoot and a DSLR. Kinda the best of both.
 
astrosdude91
How about an Olympus Pen E-P1 or a Sony Alpha NEX? I've heard a lot of nice things about those. It's basically an intermediate between a point-and-shoot and a DSLR. Kinda the best of both.
Click to expand...

Those a basically what I'd like, thanks.

EDIT: Had a look on Trademe (NZ's ebay) and they are more expensive than I was thinking. I was expecting $100-$200 (base (?) DLSRs are about $450) but I found a Olympus (the same one you said) for $300, body only.
 
Last edited:
SVX
Those a basically what I'd like, thanks.

EDIT: Had a look on Trademe (NZ's ebay) and they are more expensive than I was thinking. I was expecting $100-$200 (base (?) DLSRs are about $450) but I found a Olympus (the same one you said) for $300, body only.
Click to expand...

The cheapest dSLRs are over $500 new for the most part. Top of the line dSLRs are a couple grand, like my camera. Lenses will cost anywhere from $150 (cheap) to over $1000 dollars for professional grade lenses. Lenses for the PEN system seem to be fairly expensive, though you can get 4/3rds format adapters and use older lenses, but that will still cost $100 or more for a cheap setup.
 
Find a used Canon G series (G11/G12) or S series (S90/S95). I learnt photography on a G7, they're capable cameras in the right hands.
 
^ A C190, or any camera for $70 for that matter, is nowhere near 'more professional'. They are basic point and shoot cameras, but if that's what you're after, great.

- - - - -

If you don't want to mess with interchangeable lenses, I'd look for a dSLR-like camera that has manual controls and good reviews (check dpreview).
 
I have a Nikon D40 (a few years old)
its an entery level DSLR, does everything i need with the correct lense you can take some awesome photos.
 
Bought a used Canon 300D from a friend for $250 a few years back, and it's put up with plenty of travel abuse like a champ. Even though 5-6 megapixels doesn't sound like much today, it's still plenty useful for any image collection you're going to share on the web. Image quality (color, contrast, natural sharpness) with even the basic kit lens is still miles away from most point-and-shoots.

I'm guessing the used market has quite a few of these entry-level DSLRs, but the accessories — if not included — will also eat up a chunk of your paycheck at first. A spare battery, additional SD/CF card, quality lens cloth, neck strap, and a gadget bag are pretty much necessities. After that, things like a tripod, longer telephoto lens, polarizer filter, portable card reader, et cetera...can come later. But after that, at least you don't have to pay for film and the cost of processing it! Jeez, I took about one roll every ten days, and that ate into my budget quickly (this was 20 years ago).

Just realized you're 12 years old (re-read the OP)...maybe a point and shoot would be worth your while. The problem is, they're rather disposable (and they were that way in the pre-digital era), due to so many moving parts, especially the zoom lens. We've had two decent small digital cameras go haywire because the zoom lens mechanism gets fussy (and we always kept them away from water, never dropped). Depends on the type of photography you want to do; maybe taking a crack at film with a well-maintained SLR, and getting them developed at Wal-Mart is a good way to go old-school (helps if you have a scanner though, if you want to share your images). The problem is, maintaining things like an old EOS or an AE-1 is another budget stretcher.

Heck, when I was 12, I still had my Vivitar 110 film camera! Borrowed my parent's 35mm point-and-shoot (darned if I recall the brand) for pics here and there. Note: Do not buy a 110 camera, you will not find film, let alone anyone who can develop the film.
 
Last edited:
Pupik
Bought a used Canon 300D from a friend for $250 a few years back, and it's put up with plenty of travel abuse like a champ. Even though 5-6 megapixels doesn't sound like much today, it's still plenty useful for any image collection you're going to share on the web. Image quality (color, contrast, natural sharpness) with even the basic kit lens is still miles away from most point-and-shoots.

I'm guessing the used market has quite a few of these entry-level DSLRs, but the accessories — if not included — will also eat up a chunk of your paycheck at first. A spare battery, additional SD/CF card, quality lens cloth, neck strap, and a gadget bag are pretty much necessities. After that, things like a tripod, longer telephoto lens, polarizer filter, portable card reader, et cetera...can come later. But after that, at least you don't have to pay for film and the cost of processing it! Jeez, I took about one roll every ten days, and that ate into my budget quickly (this was 20 years ago).

Just realized you're 12 years old (re-read the OP)...maybe a point and shoot would be worth your while. The problem is, they're rather disposable (and they were that way in the pre-digital era), due to so many moving parts, especially the zoom lens. We've had two decent small digital cameras go haywire because the zoom lens mechanism gets fussy (and we always kept them away from water, never dropped). Depends on the type of photography you want to do; maybe taking a crack at film with a well-maintained SLR, and getting them developed at Wal-Mart is a good way to go old-school (helps if you have a scanner though, if you want to share your images). The problem is, maintaining things like an old EOS or an AE-1 is another budget stretcher.

Heck, when I was 12, I still had my Vivitar 110 film camera! Borrowed my parent's 35mm point-and-shoot for pics here and there.
Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that 6MP is generally all you need anyway. Though I'm not convinced an additional battery is a huge priority unless you're going to be snapping 24/7 and don't want to wait for things to charge. I went out the other day and took something like 900 photos with my D40, only to find the battery had only dropped 1 charge bar out of the three. Of course if you're buying used, perhaps a new battery might be something to budget for...
 
Jondot
Though I'm not convinced an additional battery is a huge priority unless you're going to be snapping 24/7 and don't want to wait for things to charge.
Click to expand...

My Canon batteries are fussy: One day, I can get 500-600 shots, and the battery still has some reserve (if there's no flash, and I avoid rapid-fire shots). But other times, taking sporadic shots here and there, leave the camer on stand-by...maybe 100-200. If the battery was charged over two weeks ago, it barely lasts 50 shots.

With my luck, I've had my single battery die out at 10am while on vacation. Part of that is Canon's fault, the charge meter displays: Full, Half, None. Your camera might be on "Half" and have 400 shots to go, or only 1 remaining! Then it blinks "empty" with no charge at all...overall, the only flaw that camera has.

I'm not sure if they've changed them, but we had an old Kodak EasyShare, and the charging/docking station was completely annoying, and the bloatware didn't do much of anything right. One we had a computer with a card reader, that solved the software and super-slow docking issue! I will say I their proprietary battery system was very similar to the Canon (medium charge or nothing), but at least you could pop in some standard AA batteries in a pinch. I eventually bought a spare Kodak battery for $12 at one point, so we'd have one ready.

We also have a Canon Powershot 1100, although I'm not terribly impressed. Lots of creative controls, but I can't get it to "memorize" anything once you change modes. Photos are usually murky-colored in all modes, but nothing I can't fix with PS Elements/FastStone. It set us back $120 two years ago.
 
Last edited:
Used dSLR is the way to go, I think.

First, a point-and-shoot, even a glorified one, is not going to teach you anything about how a camera works. To take good pictures, as opposed to interesting snapshots, you need to understand what it means to shoot at f:4 instead of f:22, at 1/125th instead of 1/2000th, or at ISO200 instead of ISO800. You need to know about composition, rule-of-thirds, daylight rule (ISO100 = 1/125th @ F11,) goofy stuff like that.

Twelve may be a bit early for all that. Back when I was 12 and Nixon hadn't been elected yet ("Oh, God, here we go!!" as eyes roll all over the house) I had a Kodak Instamatic with a flashcube on top, 126 cartridge print film. Less camera than a modern throwaway point-and-shoot. But it wasn't enough. I wanted control. I wanted abilities. I wanted telephoto. I wanted frozen action shots.

So I know where you're coming from wanting "more camera."

You can take great pictures with modern point-and-shoots, except for one thing: the damn shutter delay. You push the button and they sit there and think about stuff for anywhere from half a second to 2 seconds. Depending on the subject, you've probably lost your shot.

Enter the dSLR. Read the book. Start with it on full auto, just get the feel of the thing. The first thing you'll notice is that when you take a picture, it takes it right-the-@$#% NOW, which is awesome. Makes all the difference in the world. If you've got a decent one, with a fast enough memory card, you'll find that you can take 5 or 6 or 8 pictures in just a couple of seconds. Then later you can pick and choose. Then read the book again.

As you get used to it, read the book some more, and start messing with the priority modes, like you set the shutter, it picks the aperture, and vice-versa. Start playing with full manual. Learn to bracket. Read the manual again. Experiment with the program modes. Read the maual for that; each mode has a reason for existing.

Don't fear a camera because it has interchangable lenses. Instead, put value in the flexibility and versatilty that adds to the camera. You'll learn quickly what a focal length means, and why an f:2.8 lens might be more useful than a f:5.6 lens, even though it costs 4 times as much. That cost is in the future. Get a body and a basic lens and add to it as time goes by and money becomes available. Read the manual again. If the body becomes insufficient one day, replace it with one from the same manufacturer, so your lenses stay with you. Hey, you just upgraded your whole system with just one piece! Don't forget to read the manual! If you didn't get a manual with your used camera, download it from the manufacturer's web site.
 
Pupik
My Canon batteries are fussy: One day, I can get 500-600 shots, and the battery still has some reserve (if there's no flash, and I avoid rapid-fire shots). But other times, taking sporadic shots here and there, leave the camer on stand-by...maybe 100-200. If the battery was charged over two weeks ago, it barely lasts 50 shots.

With my luck, I've had my single battery die out at 10am while on vacation. Part of that is Canon's fault, the charge meter displays: Full, Half, None. Your camera might be on "Half" and have 400 shots to go, or only 1 remaining! Then it blinks "empty" with no charge at all...overall, the only flaw that camera has.
Click to expand...

Really? How bizarre... Suppose that's batteries for you - never quite as constant as you might hope. It's strange that yours is affected by being on standby, though - on the D40 (so I've read) the camera basically powers down until you press the shutter or any other button, supposedly meaning that it doesn't use any power if you leave it in 'on' and walk away. It's not live view, of course, and that assumes the remote sensor is switched off.

Oh well, moral of the story is... test your battery before you rely on it. Or something.
 
velly
I have a Nikon D40 (a few years old)
its an entery level DSLR, does everything i need with the correct lense you can take some awesome photos.
Click to expand...
I second a D40 or whatever Nikon has replaced it with. I'm still shooting with mine after a couple years of ownership.
 
Hi there,

Second hand DSLR is an option, but where the big bucks are being spent is in the lenses. Which you will need with a DSLR.
Some good ones can be bought second hand, but the good and/or best lenses still would cost some money.
For a start wou could look second hand for a wide zoom like a 18-55 and a telezoom like a 70-300 but you want better quality, you got to pay the price.

Bryan
 

Latest Posts

Back