First Camera, need suggestions for first time buyer

PhotoTeach2 said:

Michael Fryd said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

tedolf said:

volvoguy said:

I'm really leaning towards the fz300. It has everything I'm looking for.

Click to expand...

You will deeply regret two things with that camera: limited control over DOF and the inability to change lenses or sensors.

Tedolph

Click to expand...

You may really LOVE two things about that camera:

1) The wider DOF, (keeps both your family and that beautiful mountain SHARP).

And,

2) The convenience/speed of "continuous" zoom, w/ faster than available with "kit" lenses.

Click to expand...

I would disagree that the FZ300 has a "faster" lens than the standard Canon 18-55 "kit" lens.

When it comes to lenses, we need to look at the specs of the lens in the context of the camera it will be used with.

For instance, is a 50mm lens a wide, normal or telephoto lens? The answer is that it depends on the camera it is mounted on. A 50mm lens on a small sensor (like on the the FZ300) would be telephoto. On a full frame camera, that same 50mm is a normal lens. On a large format 8x10 camera, that 50mm is extremely wide angle.

A common technique is to use "equivalence" to show the what sort of lens you would need on a full frame camera to get the same results.

The FZ300 has a 4.5mm - 108mm f/2.8 zoom. The standard kit lens for the SL2 is an 18-55 f/4-5.6 zoom.

However, these specs don't really tell us what's going on. In order to make a fair comparison, we want to compare the functionality of the lenses. Let's do this by looking at the full frame equivalent for these lenses. By "equivalent" I mean same depth of field, same angle of view, and same total light (which is a good indication of noise performance).

The full frame equivalent of the FZ300 lens would be a 25–600mm f/15.5 lens.

The full frame equivalent of the SL2 lens would be a 29-88 f/6.4 to f/9 lens.

While the FZ300 lens has a larger equivalent focal length range than the SL2, it also has a much smaller equivalent aperture. I would not classify the FZ300 lens as "fast".

No whether or not this is bad is a different question. If you always shoot in bright light and want lots of depth of field, the FZ300 lens may be a good match for your needs. On the other hand, if you shoot in low light, or want shallow depth of field, the FZ300 may not be your best option.

Click to expand...

Enough (way TOO MUCH) of the "equivalence" nonsense that only deceives "beginners".

Click to expand...

Your opinion. Goes in the same category as many of your opinions.

PhotoTeach2 said:

I can take a photo in the same-light you can ... will it be the "same" ??? It may even be better if you like wider DOF and the noise is low enough to not be noticeable or objectionable.

Click to expand...

Generally, it is noise levels that determine how low light you are willing to photograph in. I can't think of any other criterion that people use. Can you?

PhotoTeach2 said:

Both smaller and larger cameras/sensors/lenses are compromises and there are both advantages and disadvantages to ALL.

There is no perfect camera for everyone in all situations.

Note that I have recommended the FZ-1000 over the 300, (for same price), IMHO a "perfect-compromise".

It does have a "larger" and more-mpx sensor with many more options and features, (including "Hand-Held NIGHT-shot" mode).

It can do everything (and more) than the 300, (for same price).

Click to expand...

No one is arguing against the idea that all cameras and systems represent different compromises. It just seems that you want to propose the FZ1000 as the perfect compromise for every single situation.

It's not that I don't think it's a great camera, I nearly bought one myself but ended up with a TZ100 because the smaller body at cost of zoom long end was a better compromise for what I wanted the camera for. It's just that you have taken the relentless promotion of your favourite camera beyond anything that is reasonable.

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

Enough is quite right. This thread is in danger of going down the FZ1000 is the best camera in the world route again. Can we please stop this argument or people will be taking a rest.

volvoguy said:

You guys are awesome. What I completely forgot to mention was that my wife has a Canon Rebel 20d I believe it is. She has 2 lenses with it. I bought it for her about 8 years ago and she never really took the time with it.

We were both looking for more of a point and shoot option so we didn't have to carry the much larger canon around.

Click to expand...

Hi,

The fz300 is about the same size as the Canon you already have. If the size is really an issue, then consider something more compact. (I have one of the the smallest system cameras, Pentax Q, but it seldom leaves home because it's not pocketable :-( )

Every camera has a learning curve whether it's from year 2008 or 2018 (except smartphone cameras). You'll have to figure out how to change settings and where to access different features. Few hours with the user guide. Unfortunately no shortcuts here.

For learning photography, I'd take that Canon of yours any day

If I were you, I'd shoot a month with that Canon to see what are the features I really want and how much zoom I really need for my next camera.

At least one assignment per week:

• How and when to use shutter priority
• How and when to use aperture priority
• How and when to use exposure compensation
• How to use built in flash (fill flash, backlit situations, portraits, freezing action, etc.)

Check out some articles or videos on those subjects and go try the techniques with your favourite subjects.

You'll learn some basics of photography. You'll lern to use your camera. And you'll figure out what's your next camera going to be like.

That's what i'd do

I had the FZ300 and really liked it though eventually I sold it and got an FZ1000. The FZ300 will be good in daylight shots. A bigger Sensor like that in the FZ1000 will give you better low light performance and greater ability to isolate your subject due to a shallower depth of field.

Footski said:

Enough is quite right. This thread is in danger of going down the FZ1000 is the best camera in the world route again. Can we please stop this argument or people will be taking a rest.

Click to expand...

I always get a kick out of reading recommendations for the FZ1000 and some people like that camera so much they do seem to overdue it, at times.

Just the same, if a person doesn't mind the size of the camera or the fact that larger sensors are better in high ISO/low light situations, the FZ1000 is definitely worth considering, especially when you consider price and Panasonic's 3-year extended warranty for that camera.

I, absolutely, think it's a much, much better recommendation than telling a beginner they need to buy a full frame DSLR.

PhotoTeach2 does make a lot of good points about the camera and I agree with 99.9% of everything he says; the FZ1000 is one of the very best fixed zoom lens cameras a person can buy.

It's not right for everyone and may get recommended too much but I don't think any amount of complaining is going to change that.

The fz300 is a great type of camera for a beginner, you can learn a lot about photography, has a wide zoom range, and can handle many photo tasks. It will also be a great back up cam if you ever want to get another.

you also don't have to buy extra lenses for it, but I would get a filter for the front of it.

actualy budget does not need to be considered for this question in so far as it should be conserved for someones second purchase.

I think one should learn photography first, so as long as a camera has a A S P M dial, it should be fine for someone to learn how to shoot.

as much as it is easy to get interchanable lens cameras cheap, it is not the end all be all of work on the learning curve.

Once you know what and how you like to shoot then you can go after a particular model on the next go round.

Ed B said:

Footski said:

Enough is quite right. This thread is in danger of going down the FZ1000 is the best camera in the world route again. Can we please stop this argument or people will be taking a rest.

Click to expand...

I always get a kick out of reading recommendations for the FZ1000 and some people like that camera so much they do seem to overdue it, at times.

Just the same, if a person doesn't mind the size of the camera or the fact that larger sensors are better in high ISO/low light situations, the FZ1000 is definitely worth considering, especially when you consider price and Panasonic's 3-year extended warranty for that camera.

I, absolutely, think it's a much, much better recommendation than telling a beginner they need to buy a full frame DSLR.

PhotoTeach2 does make a lot of good points about the camera and I agree with 99.9% of everything he says; the FZ1000 is one of the very best fixed zoom lens cameras a person can buy.

It's not right for everyone and may get recommended too much but I don't think any amount of complaining is going to change that.

Click to expand...

Yes. The FZ1000 does have a lot going for it. The key is to understand its strengths as well as it's limitations.

Depending on where the OP wants to go with photography, it may be a good choice, or it may be a bad choice.

If you are looking to make photography a long term hobby, you may be better off buying into a system, that can grow with your needs and desires.

If you're looking for an all-in-one camera to do everything, and the FZ1000 meets your shooting needs, then it might be the best choice.

If the FZ1000 doesn't meet your needs, then it certainly makes sense to consider other cameras.

Tim Reidy Productions said:

[...] but I would get a filter for the front of it.

Click to expand...

As if the tiny sensor wasn't enough of a challenge for that camera.

Tim Reidy Productions said:

The fz300 is a great type of camera for a beginner, you can learn a lot about photography, has a wide zoom range, and can handle many photo tasks. It will also be a great back up cam if you ever want to get another.

you also don't have to buy extra lenses for it, but I would get a filter for the front of it.

Click to expand...

Filters are another one of those things that have advantages and disadvantages.

They also tend to stir up a lot of comments as many people have strong feelings.

The facts are that in many situations filters won't make a difference. Using them probably won't make a noticeable difference in image quality. An your lens is likely to survive undamaged if you avoid them.

The two sides are:

• Of course you should use a protective filter. Since a filter is unlikely to affect image quality, why risk damage to your expensive lens?
• You should avoid protective filters. Since a bare lens is unlikely to be damaged, why risk losing image quality to an unneeded filter?

The major impact of a filter is emotional. Some people just don't feel comfortable with extra glass in the optical path. Some people don't feel comfortable without extra glass protecting their lens.

If you have strong emotional feelings, then follow them. If you don't don't worry about filters.

if the lens is broken on a fz300 so is the whole camera. a 5 dollar filter solves that problem.

I did break a filter on my fz200, but not the lens.

most of my other lenses I do not use a filter for, I can detach them and still have a working camera though.

I wish I had some for some of my old compacts though.

Michael Fryd said:

Tim Reidy Productions said:

The fz300 is a great type of camera for a beginner, you can learn a lot about photography, has a wide zoom range, and can handle many photo tasks. It will also be a great back up cam if you ever want to get another.

you also don't have to buy extra lenses for it, but I would get a filter for the front of it.

Click to expand...

Filters are another one of those things that have advantages and disadvantages.

They also tend to stir up a lot of comments as many people have strong feelings.

The facts are that in many situations filters won't make a difference. Using them probably won't make a noticeable difference in image quality. An your lens is likely to survive undamaged if you avoid them.

The two sides are:

• Of course you should use a protective filter. Since a filter is unlikely to affect image quality, why risk damage to your expensive lens?
• You should avoid protective filters. Since a bare lens is unlikely to be damaged, why risk losing image quality to an unneeded filter?

The major impact of a filter is emotional. Some people just don't feel comfortable with extra glass in the optical path. Some people don't feel comfortable without extra glass protecting their lens.

If you have strong emotional feelings, then follow them. If you don't don't worry about filters.

Click to expand...

From my own experience, I have found that the filter can actually increase the possibility of damage. Generally filter glass is very thin, and they are easily smashed. The sharp glass fragments then go on to scratch and damage the front element of the lens. When your lens is unused, a lens cap os better protection. When in use, a lens hood is better protection.

I have answered the reason to get a filter for this model.

you get a lens cap and hood included, but no filter. my lens cap will cover the filter.

volvoguy said:

Hello folks. Im looking for sugestions with buying my first camera. Im not looked to do professional things like weddings but I like taking pictures of my family, cars and nature. Not sure If I want a camera with removable lense, but at the same time I don't want to short change myself. I know very little about cameras, so if you guys could make some suggestions, I would appreciate it.

So far a buddy recommended the fz300.

What else?

-TIA

-Justin

Click to expand...

For family cars and outdoors I would suggest a compact camera with a 1" sensor and a large aperture zoom lens. These cameras are ideal for indoor shots of people in say birthday party situations as well as outdoor shots of cars and nature.

These cameras are easy to carry around, are very forgiving to use and generally do a great job.

You can either go for the small pocketable versions of these cameras like the Sony RX100 series, the Canon G5X or G7X or the Panasonic LX10

Or you can consider the bridge versions of these cameras which are the Canon G3X, Sony RX10 series or Panasonic FZ 1000 or FZ2500 cameras.

All in all if size and weight is not an issue I would recommend the FZ1000, if it is then any of the pocketable cameras that I mention above are very good.

I think that the FZ300 with its ultra long lens and tiny sensor are not optimal for your particular needs, a 1" sensor will be more forgiving and produce better IQ overall.

Michael Fryd said:

Ed B said:

Footski said:

Enough is quite right. This thread is in danger of going down the FZ1000 is the best camera in the world route again. Can we please stop this argument or people will be taking a rest.

Click to expand...

I always get a kick out of reading recommendations for the FZ1000 and some people like that camera so much they do seem to overdue it, at times.

Just the same, if a person doesn't mind the size of the camera or the fact that larger sensors are better in high ISO/low light situations, the FZ1000 is definitely worth considering, especially when you consider price and Panasonic's 3-year extended warranty for that camera.

I, absolutely, think it's a much, much better recommendation than telling a beginner they need to buy a full frame DSLR.

PhotoTeach2 does make a lot of good points about the camera and I agree with 99.9% of everything he says; the FZ1000 is one of the very best fixed zoom lens cameras a person can buy.

It's not right for everyone and may get recommended too much but I don't think any amount of complaining is going to change that.

Click to expand...

Yes. The FZ1000 does have a lot going for it. The key is to understand its strengths as well as it's limitations.

Depending on where the OP wants to go with photography, it may be a good choice, or it may be a bad choice.

If you are looking to make photography a long term hobby, you may be better off buying into a system, that can grow with your needs and desires.

If you're looking for an all-in-one camera to do everything, and the FZ1000 meets your shooting needs, then it might be the best choice.

If the FZ1000 doesn't meet your needs, then it certainly makes sense to consider other cameras.

Click to expand...

I don't have an FZ1000 but this 'growing into' business is a load of nonsense for most people and especially with regard to the FZ1000. This camera will probably be a keeper and, if not, it could be traded in when the owner has learnt what specifically he wants that the FZ1000 can't provide. Not sure what that would be though, and honestly the FZ1000 should satisfy anyone, beginner or very experienced, as an only camera or as a complementary unit, for a very long time.

Personally it doesn't fit my requirements, or more specifically there are other cameras and lenses that I own that do all I need already, so tempting as it is to buy an FZ1000, it would be plain silly for me to do so unless I decided to consolidate with less equipment.

We are all different, but if I was starting over, I would certainly look at the FZ1000/2000 and the Sony RX10 range, probably in preference to an interchangeable lens camera. Luckily it is not a choice I currently have to make.

Tim Reidy Productions said:

I have answered the reason to get a filter for this model.

you get a lens cap and hood included, but no filter. my lens cap will cover the filter.

Click to expand...

I was just giving my experience, where the presence of the filter actually damaged the lens.

Thanks anyway for illustrating Michael's point that this point can get emotional.

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

Aberaeron said:

Aberaeron said:

...

Click to expand...

I don't have an FZ1000 but this 'growing into' business is a load of nonsense for most people and especially with regard to the FZ1000. This camera will probably be a keeper and, if not, it could be traded in when the owner has learnt what specifically he wants that the FZ1000 can't provide. Not sure what that would be though, and honestly the FZ1000 should satisfy anyone, beginner or very experienced, as an only camera or as a complementary unit, for a very long time.

Click to expand...

Yes. Not everyone wants photography as a hobby. Many just want a camera they can use for snapshots.

For these people a smartphone is the typical camera choice.

If you are unhappy with the smartphone, then you buy a camera. But it's important to look at what the smartphone isn't doing for you.

If the smartphone isn't giving you the "reach" you want, then something like the FZ1000 may be a good solution. If the smartphone isn't doing well in low light, then the FZ1000 may not be that great of a choice.

If you want to be able to shoot in low light without a flash, then something with a larger sensor and wider aperture diameters may be better suited for your needs.

If you want to be able to shoot shallow depth of field portraits of your kids, then you might want to skip the FZ1000, and go with something that's better at shallow depth of field.

Again, it's going to depend on the needs of the photographer.

Now, some people actually do want to get into photography as a hobby. It turns out many people do enjoy photography. If this is the goal, it may make sense to start by buying an entry level, interchangeable lens camera from a larger system, instead of buying a fixed camera. With a camera that's part of a larger system you can incrementally add capabilities without replacing everything. Some people are not good at selling their digital camera in a way that recovers much of the investment.

Tim Reidy Productions said:

if the lens is broken on a fz300 so is the whole camera. a 5 dollar filter solves that problem.

I did break a filter on my fz200, but not the lens.

most of my other lenses I do not use a filter for, I can detach them and still have a working camera though.

I wish I had some for some of my old compacts though.

Click to expand...

Yes. It is clear you feel more comfortable with a protective filter on your camera. You should use one.

But you do bring up an important point. If the FZ1000 lens get damaged, you can't swap to a different lens. You're out of commission until the camera gets repaired.

The question then becomes what are the best ways of protecting the camera? Clearly we want to make sure the cost (in terms of both money and convenience) don't outweigh the expected benefit.

For instance, We could spend a few hundred on a custom, foam lined, Pelican hard case for the camera. However, for most people it doesn't make sense to spend $200 for a case that only protects a $500 camera during transport. A $30 camera bag may be enough to protect against most likely hazards.

We could keep the camera wrapped in bubble wrap, with strategic openings for the lens and access to controls. While this is inexpensive, and would significantly increase protection against damage from dropping the camera. Unfortunately, it would make the camera difficult to use.

We might try keeping the camera in a sealed Ziploc® bag. This would provide the camera with excellent protection against rain and dust. However, shooting through the plastic of the bag would likely impact image quality.

A custom waterproof Scuba rated housing provides significant protection. You can drop the camera in a swimming pool and it won't be damaged. You could shoot in a desert sandstorm without harming the camera. The housing allows access to all controls. It has high quality glass in front of the lens. You don't need to worry about dust getting into the camera (it can be difficult to physically clean the sensor on a FZ1000). But a waterproof Scuba housing can easily cost more than the FZ1000, and many of us use a neck strap so we don't drop the camera into a swimming pool.

====

The bottom line is that simply providing some level of protection does not mean we should necessarily use it. We need to balance the pros and the cons of the protection.

• How much does it cost?
• Does it make the camera less convenient, or harder to use?
• Does it affect image quality? If so, is it uniform in all situations, or does the impact vary by situation?
• What are the hazards it protects against?
• How likely are we to encounter one of those hazards?
• What is the cost of repairing any damage?
• Does it increase the likelihood of other types of damage?
• Does it make us worry that it is impacting image quality?
• Does it make us feel more confident, so we are more likely to actually use the camera?

Different people are in different situations. Your answers to the above will depend on the specifics of your situation. When it comes to filters, the biggest factor tends to be emotional - Does the filter make you feel more or less comfortable? There are many people who would worry about image quality with an expensive high quality filter on the lens. There are many people who worry that a spec of dust might touch their front element without a protective filter.

If a filter makes you more comfortable, than use one. But don't expect that your decision is necessarily right for everyone else. Not everyone feels the same way about filters as you do.

Aberaeron said:

... and honestly the FZ1000 should satisfy anyone, beginner or very experienced, as an only camera or as a complementary unit, for a very long time.

Personally it doesn't fit my requirements ...

Click to expand...

I know you qualified the second statement but this does point up an important issue: it's nowhere near "anyone" that the camera might satisfy.

In terms of its lens, its widest is too narrow for about 40% of the shots I take so it's no use as a main camera. And it's much bigger than any lens I'd need to do what my basic kit does, so it's no use as a complementary unit.

I don't claim to be special I any way, so if it's no use to me it must be no use to many other people. This is, of course, true of any camera. So picking out any camera (not just this one) as "suitable for anybody" is misleading at best.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Aberaeron said:

... and honestly the FZ1000 should satisfy anyone, beginner or very experienced, as an only camera or as a complementary unit, for a very long time.

Personally it doesn't fit my requirements ...

Click to expand...

I know you qualified the second statement but this does point up an important issue: it's nowhere near "anyone" that the camera might satisfy.

In terms of its lens, its widest is too narrow for about 40% of the shots I take so it's no use as a main camera. And it's much bigger than any lens I'd need to do what my basic kit does, so it's no use as a complementary unit.

I don't claim to be special I any way, so if it's no use to me it must be no use to many other people. This is, of course, true of any camera. So picking out any camera (not just this one) as "suitable for anybody" is misleading at best.

--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
[email protected]

Click to expand...

I never recommend a specific brand or camera to anyone because there are so many good cameras out there and so many people with different needs and expectations, that recommending a specific camera just doesn't make much sense to me because there are so many variables.

Just the same, when a beginner asks "what camera is best for me" or "what camera should I buy" I sometimes recommend a camera that might be worth considering.

I never suggest a camera with one of the tiny sensors because, with the exception that some of these have a very long zoom lens, I honestly feel these cameras just aren't very good for most people.

That leaves cameras with a one-inch or larger sensor, fixed or interchangeable lens and that covers a lot of ground with every manufacturer making something that would make everyone happy.

I do think that on the lower end of scale, in the one-inch sensor category, the FZ1000 is worth considering for anyone who wants a fixed zoom lens type camera.

It's absolutely not right for many things but it is a good general purpose camera that would make a lot of casual photographers very happy.

The size of the camera would be a turn-off for many people and, even though that one-inch sensor does a better job than many people might expect, it's still a one-inch sensor.

Anyway, most people seem to recommend the camera they own and claim it's the very best thing since apple pie so most recommendations are nothing more than personal opinions and everybody has one of those.