Thanks for your good suggestion
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
As a new Photography learner, Please suggest me a camera under $800
- Thread starter Cassie yi
- Start date
If you have no idea what you want to shoot, start cheaper than $800. I wouldn't recommend going with most compact cameras, as it will be difficult to understand the relationship between aperture and depth of field - and when you get a bit more advanced, hyperfocal distances.
If you're planning on learning and taking this more seriously, an interchangeable lens camera will help you understand different aspects of photography better, and allow you to play with different lenses as you see fit. In which case, I'd ignore compact cameras altogether, and probably ignore Sony A cameras (not too many native lenses to choose from, and the ones that are there aren't great or are very expensive).
In fact, if you're just starting out, I'd go used (or at least last-year's model) to save on costs up front to learn the basics. That way, you can learn more about what you need and make a more informed decision next time.
My picks:
Nikon D3300 or D5200 - good entries into the world of Nikon. The D5200 can be had for $500 with kit lens, and is a solid choice, even today.
Canon T5i - prices haven't dropped as much as I expected, but this was the Canon competitor to the D3200 I think. Still about $600 new, which makes the Nikon option a better buy.
Olympus E-M10 (marks I or II, just pick whichever's cheaper) - this is a mirrorless option, so it'll be smaller, easier to carry around, and has the benefit that you can see exposure changes much more readily in the viewfinder - you can't do that on the Nikon and Canon, as they have strictly optical viewfinders. Autofocus on the Olympus is also different from the other two - the Oly will focus very well using the back screen, the Nikon not so much - however, if you're using the viewfinder, the Nikon and Canon will do a little better if you're trying to track something that's moving. Can be found for between $450-600, sometimes with two lenses.
---
If you're willing to go used, there are many more options that will help you learn just as well as these models, if not better.
Why the focus on saving money up front? Because lenses are a very important part of learning about photography, and they can get pricey. Each of the cameras mentioned above has reasonably good additional lenses in the $150-300 range that will expand what you can do with the camera body - once you know what you want to do, you can use the money saved up front towards a different lens - for example, the 50mm/1.8 lenses for Nikon and Canon (and the 45mm/1.8 on Oly) can be had for $150-250, and would give the nice, dreamy backgrounds that people associate with 'professional' portraiture.
If you're planning on learning and taking this more seriously, an interchangeable lens camera will help you understand different aspects of photography better, and allow you to play with different lenses as you see fit. In which case, I'd ignore compact cameras altogether, and probably ignore Sony A cameras (not too many native lenses to choose from, and the ones that are there aren't great or are very expensive).
In fact, if you're just starting out, I'd go used (or at least last-year's model) to save on costs up front to learn the basics. That way, you can learn more about what you need and make a more informed decision next time.
My picks:
Nikon D3300 or D5200 - good entries into the world of Nikon. The D5200 can be had for $500 with kit lens, and is a solid choice, even today.
Canon T5i - prices haven't dropped as much as I expected, but this was the Canon competitor to the D3200 I think. Still about $600 new, which makes the Nikon option a better buy.
Olympus E-M10 (marks I or II, just pick whichever's cheaper) - this is a mirrorless option, so it'll be smaller, easier to carry around, and has the benefit that you can see exposure changes much more readily in the viewfinder - you can't do that on the Nikon and Canon, as they have strictly optical viewfinders. Autofocus on the Olympus is also different from the other two - the Oly will focus very well using the back screen, the Nikon not so much - however, if you're using the viewfinder, the Nikon and Canon will do a little better if you're trying to track something that's moving. Can be found for between $450-600, sometimes with two lenses.
---
If you're willing to go used, there are many more options that will help you learn just as well as these models, if not better.
Why the focus on saving money up front? Because lenses are a very important part of learning about photography, and they can get pricey. Each of the cameras mentioned above has reasonably good additional lenses in the $150-300 range that will expand what you can do with the camera body - once you know what you want to do, you can use the money saved up front towards a different lens - for example, the 50mm/1.8 lenses for Nikon and Canon (and the 45mm/1.8 on Oly) can be had for $150-250, and would give the nice, dreamy backgrounds that people associate with 'professional' portraiture.
I second that - buy something cheap, learn and decide where to upgrade if needed.
Unlike smartphones or computers, a very cheap 6-7 year old camera with decent lens can produce amazing pictures with little effort, most of the time indistinguishable from the newest models.
Unlike smartphones or computers, a very cheap 6-7 year old camera with decent lens can produce amazing pictures with little effort, most of the time indistinguishable from the newest models.
Any camera, no mater how complicated it might seem, can also be used in "full auto" mode. This is the idiot proof mode where the camera makes all the decisions for you. So don't be afraid of cameras that can do more, even though you might not be needing those capabilities right away, it is nice to have them for later.
The only problem with auto modes is that they are educated guesses made by your camera. They usually turn out pretty well, but an educated photographer can usually do better by selecting the settings themselves. You aren't at that point yet, but you might be there six months from now.
So I would suggest that your first camera have:
I also suggest you get a good photo editing program. These run the range from "free" (like GIMP), to fairly inexpensive (like Photoshop Elements) to fairly expensive (like Photoshop Creative Cloud Suite. Most cameras come with their own photo editing program today. There might be a disk in the box, or you could download it from their website for free.
If you browse these forums you will discover that none of us experts ever agree on anything. Some think MILC cameras are the best, others prefer DSLRs, and some others prefer fixed lens compacts or superzooms. Some swear by optical view finders, others prefer electronic viewfinders. Some prefer interchangeable lens cameras, other's don't. Some want a big camera, while others want a tiny one.
And this is why I suggest that find out for yourself what suits YOU best. Your camera has to fit your needs, your wants and your budget. And it even needs to fit your hands. It might even need to fit your personal "style."
Don't feel like you need to learn everything right away.
Just buy something, and start shooting. Your goal should be to gradually get better as you learn more. I promise you that the differences between all these cameras types is a LOT LESS important than you learning how to make good compositions and learning how to select interesting subject matter. Yes, it is an old cliche, but it really is the photographer and not the gear that makes the difference!
Photography is essentially a skill, that can become an art form at it's highest level. Some people have an eye for it, and others just learn it. But if you practice and learn you WILL get better. Just like bowling, or golf!
It is also a very rewarding and satisfying hobby. And it will only cost you a fortune if you want it to. When it comes to spending money for gear, the sky is literally the limit. But some very wonderful photos have been taken with some very modest gear.
Welcome to the fold!
The only problem with auto modes is that they are educated guesses made by your camera. They usually turn out pretty well, but an educated photographer can usually do better by selecting the settings themselves. You aren't at that point yet, but you might be there six months from now.
So I would suggest that your first camera have:
- Aperture and Shutter priority modes
- A program mode
- An auto mode, sometimes called iAuto ("intelligent auto")
- Plus full manual controls
I also suggest you get a good photo editing program. These run the range from "free" (like GIMP), to fairly inexpensive (like Photoshop Elements) to fairly expensive (like Photoshop Creative Cloud Suite. Most cameras come with their own photo editing program today. There might be a disk in the box, or you could download it from their website for free.
If you browse these forums you will discover that none of us experts ever agree on anything. Some think MILC cameras are the best, others prefer DSLRs, and some others prefer fixed lens compacts or superzooms. Some swear by optical view finders, others prefer electronic viewfinders. Some prefer interchangeable lens cameras, other's don't. Some want a big camera, while others want a tiny one.
And this is why I suggest that find out for yourself what suits YOU best. Your camera has to fit your needs, your wants and your budget. And it even needs to fit your hands. It might even need to fit your personal "style."
Don't feel like you need to learn everything right away.
Just buy something, and start shooting. Your goal should be to gradually get better as you learn more. I promise you that the differences between all these cameras types is a LOT LESS important than you learning how to make good compositions and learning how to select interesting subject matter. Yes, it is an old cliche, but it really is the photographer and not the gear that makes the difference!
Photography is essentially a skill, that can become an art form at it's highest level. Some people have an eye for it, and others just learn it. But if you practice and learn you WILL get better. Just like bowling, or golf!
It is also a very rewarding and satisfying hobby. And it will only cost you a fortune if you want it to. When it comes to spending money for gear, the sky is literally the limit. But some very wonderful photos have been taken with some very modest gear.
Welcome to the fold!
Hi!
Many good advices here, especially the one about getting a cheap used interchangeable lens camera.
One thing that you have to have in mind is that is all about the lenses, and you said you'd like to take family pictures, isn't ? So you will love a prime (fixed, non zoom) with a wide aperture (low F number, makes background blurry and makes family go AWWWW IT LOOKS AMAZING , SO PROFESSIONAL LOKING!!) .
Here are some examples you can get with VERY cheap equipment:
Canon EF 50mm 1.8 (the famous nifty fifty plastic fantastic, the best lens in the world, it gives you the taste of blurry backgrounds for portraits for only 100 bucks for a new one)
You can get results like this with any crop sensor camera and a 50mm 1.8 . This was a raw with basic edits in Lightroom.
Photo taken at night, with only ambient light.
Natural light, near a window
50 mm on a crop sensor gives you que equivalent field of view of 80 mm something, this is great for portraits, but kinda tight for small spaces or big groups of people.
Here are some examples you can get with a EF-M 22mm F2 (this is a great small lens you would use with the Canon mirorless camera, the EOS M3.
Uncle Julio preparing sunday's feijoada.
Dad, mom and sis when we went to Germany. I tend to prefer wider angle lenses for traveling, so the 22mm was not used very much.
Some random spontaneous picture of friends, so you can see what you can get on a poorly lit interior. No artistic value here, but a nice moment to have recorded for those involved
So, I think the idea of buying a cheap used interchangeable lens camera is the best option, BUT, remember that the best camera is the one you have with you. If you are not willing to carry a camera bag, or having it on your neck, there are some AWESOME pocket cameras with top quality images. Many people who have all of the good gear, still have a pocket camera so, there's this other idea, you can start with an advanced compact camera, that you will not stop using , even if you buy the best DSLRs or mirrorless interchangeable.
Some of them are: Sony Rx series, Canon G9x and G7x, Ricoh GR.
I have only an old Canon S110 as a pocket camera, but it is already much better than a cellphone camera, and I want to upgrade to one of those i've mentioned, which have considerably more image quality, especially at low light.
Bride was about to throw the bouquet, quickly positioned myself, drew the trusty S110 from my pocket and held it with half pressed shutter, ready to snap the pic when the bouquet arrrived. All with my right hand, while the left one held the whisky glass. I love this picture
Little S110 on a mini tripod saving the day again from the dreaded night handheld smartphone group picture.
I wanted to give here some examples of what you can get with very cheap equipment that you can learn, from someone who is a humble amateur, just like you, albeit with a little more experience. I was in the same dilemma when buying my first digital camera, and there was a lot of people with insightful posts that helped me a lot, so I hope I can do the same
Many good advices here, especially the one about getting a cheap used interchangeable lens camera.
One thing that you have to have in mind is that is all about the lenses, and you said you'd like to take family pictures, isn't ? So you will love a prime (fixed, non zoom) with a wide aperture (low F number, makes background blurry and makes family go AWWWW IT LOOKS AMAZING , SO PROFESSIONAL LOKING!!) .
Here are some examples you can get with VERY cheap equipment:
Canon EF 50mm 1.8 (the famous nifty fifty plastic fantastic, the best lens in the world, it gives you the taste of blurry backgrounds for portraits for only 100 bucks for a new one)
You can get results like this with any crop sensor camera and a 50mm 1.8 . This was a raw with basic edits in Lightroom.
Photo taken at night, with only ambient light.
Natural light, near a window
50 mm on a crop sensor gives you que equivalent field of view of 80 mm something, this is great for portraits, but kinda tight for small spaces or big groups of people.
Here are some examples you can get with a EF-M 22mm F2 (this is a great small lens you would use with the Canon mirorless camera, the EOS M3.
Uncle Julio preparing sunday's feijoada.
Dad, mom and sis when we went to Germany. I tend to prefer wider angle lenses for traveling, so the 22mm was not used very much.
Some random spontaneous picture of friends, so you can see what you can get on a poorly lit interior. No artistic value here, but a nice moment to have recorded for those involved
So, I think the idea of buying a cheap used interchangeable lens camera is the best option, BUT, remember that the best camera is the one you have with you. If you are not willing to carry a camera bag, or having it on your neck, there are some AWESOME pocket cameras with top quality images. Many people who have all of the good gear, still have a pocket camera so, there's this other idea, you can start with an advanced compact camera, that you will not stop using , even if you buy the best DSLRs or mirrorless interchangeable.
Some of them are: Sony Rx series, Canon G9x and G7x, Ricoh GR.
I have only an old Canon S110 as a pocket camera, but it is already much better than a cellphone camera, and I want to upgrade to one of those i've mentioned, which have considerably more image quality, especially at low light.
Bride was about to throw the bouquet, quickly positioned myself, drew the trusty S110 from my pocket and held it with half pressed shutter, ready to snap the pic when the bouquet arrrived. All with my right hand, while the left one held the whisky glass. I love this picture
Little S110 on a mini tripod saving the day again from the dreaded night handheld smartphone group picture.
I wanted to give here some examples of what you can get with very cheap equipment that you can learn, from someone who is a humble amateur, just like you, albeit with a little more experience. I was in the same dilemma when buying my first digital camera, and there was a lot of people with insightful posts that helped me a lot, so I hope I can do the same
Attachments
Normally, I wouldn't comment on what you've said but because the OP is basically a beginner I have to correct you on one point.
The Panasonic cameras you've mentioned are not classified as "mirrorless" cameras; they're bridge cameras and technically classified in the "point & shoot" category because they have a fixed lens.
Granted, they don't have a mirror (like an SLR camera) but without the ability to change lenses they are not included in the mirrorless category.
By the way, no matter what the technical classification, I agree the FZ1000 is a very good camera.
Bobthearch
Forum Pro
Since it costs hundreds of dollars more than an entry-level DSLR but can't be upgraded, I hope it's a good camera.By the way, no matter what the technical classification, I agree the FZ1000 is a very good camera.
Since it costs hundreds of dollars more than an entry-level DSLR but can't be upgraded, I hope it's a good camera.By the way, no matter what the technical classification, I agree the FZ1000 is a very good camera.
Yes, you're right that you can buy an entry level DSLR with an inexpensive/slow kit lens for less but the only thing about this level of DSLR that will be a little "better" than the FZ1000 is the sensor size but that smaller sensor, in the Panasonic, is much better than most people realize.
The FZ1000 is much faster to focus and faster in overall performance than any entry level DSLR.
It has a very good lens that's much better than any entry level DSLR kit lens and the fact that it has a 400mm zoom makes it much more versatile than any kit lens.
Not to mention, 4K video and several other features that aren't available on the cheap entry level DSLRs.
I try never to recommend a camera model or brand to anyone because I think there are way too many good choices out there.
Just the same I do think the FZ1000 is a very good camera.
PhotoTeach2
Forum Pro
It is cheaper than any dSLR and the three additional lenses it would take to equal it.Since it costs hundreds of dollars more than an entry-level DSLR but can't be upgraded, I hope it's a good camera.By the way, no matter what the technical classification, I agree the FZ1000 is a very good camera.
And I don't have to hope it is a good camera, I KNOW it is and I now have 10X more shooting opportunities 100X more "FUN" than I had with my 55+ year collection of cameras/lenses.
You're 100% right.It is cheaper than any dSLR and the three additional lenses it would take to equal it.Since it costs hundreds of dollars more than an entry-level DSLR but can't be upgraded, I hope it's a good camera.By the way, no matter what the technical classification, I agree the FZ1000 is a very good camera.
And I don't have to hope it is a good camera, I KNOW it is and I now have 10X more shooting opportunities 100X more "FUN" than I had with my 55+ year collection of cameras/lenses.
I've used Canon most of my life and my first DSLR was a Canon 10D, then the 40D. Still have the 40D but decided to try mirrorless and also bought a Fuji when they came out with the X-E1.
Can't say one bad thing about Canon or Fuji and will probably always own a Fuji (unless they stop making them
) but I got a good deal on an FX1000 so decided to buy one, just out of curiosity.Much, much better camera than I expected. Hard to find any, reasonable, negatives about it.
Last edited:
lumigraphics
Senior Member
Millions of photographers learned just fine on film SLRs where they didn't even see the pictures until hours or days later. Hello.
This is just biased, bad advice.
Just because that's how they did it back then, does this mean it should be this way now? THAT is terrible advice.
lumigraphics
Senior Member
You'll find little difference between a DSLR and a mirrorless camera. It's like asking which is easier to learn driving with, a pickup truck or sedan. Either will do fine but once you get past learning and want to use it, there are important differences.
lumigraphics
Senior Member
PhotoTeach2
Forum Pro
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ???
There is a lot of difference.
DSLR:
1.) You "have" to hold it to your "eye" to get fast AF, (a Nikon D3300 on Live-View has an unacceptable 2-second delay.)
2.) You see a more "natural" image, but NOT what your final image will be like.
3.) The (APS) Optical Viewfinder (OVF) is smaller/darker than older film SLR's, and impossible to use with "dark" (ND) filters.
4.) Most OVF's are not 100% coverage ...
5.) You have to "trust" your cameras metering system to give you an "average" exposure, (from 18% scene). With any backlit or spotlit subject, you have to make an "educated" GUESS at how much Exposure-Compensation to use. You never really know how your image will look until AFTER you shoot, (and when it may be too-late to shoot again if your image is not satisfactory).
6.) DSLR's are notorious for "back"-"front" focus issues, and are almost impossible to "manual" focus.
7.) After exposure you have to remove camera from your eye and push "disp" button to review your image on the rear-LCD, (if SUN-light allows you to use it).
MIRRORLESS
1.) You have a CHOICE of using the "eye" level or rear-LCD ... with a FULLY-articulating LCD you can shoot from below ground level or held high overhead, (or even do "selfies"). There is NO AF delay w/ LV, and most mirrorless have shorter shutter-lag than dSLR's.
2.) You see pretty much exactly what your final image will be.
3.) EVF can be usable w/ ND filters and in low-light or night.
4.) EVF's do have 100% coverage.
5.) With "zebras" you can get a BETTER EXPOSED image with easy/fast ETTR optimization.
6.) Mirrorless has more "accurate" focus.
7.) You can select to have retained "Image-Review" to instantly verify your exposure / pose / smile / eyes to determine if you need to reshoot.
The list goes on ... but I don't have more time to continue .... but all of the above make it much faster for a beginner to "learn" exposure and ultimately get better images w/out the constraints of a 60+ yo mirror.
Last edited:
All cameras are not complex to operate at all.
The difference between a DSLR and mirrorless camera in terms of learning to take a properly exposed photo is quite different.
With the DSLR, you are viewing through the lens with your eyes, so any adjustments you make on the camera, you will notry be able to see until you take the photo.
On a mirrorless system, you can see your changes instantly because you are viewing through what the cameras sensor sees. This is instant feedback on your changes and you will learn quite a bit faster.
Max Iso
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,652
- Reaction score
- 10,214
Which is what you will be doing in daylight anyway. Right?
You don't see what your image will look like on ML either. Your EVF and LCD project an approximation based on a jpeg feed. And, bright ambient light will mess up your ability to judge as well. I have owned 4 cameras with EVFs, every one was worthless in manual mode in bright sun, bc the ambient light that creeps in when looking at the EVF is enough to wash out the brightness of the screen.
When the screen looks darker, you can't tell if it's due to underexposure or the glare. It's a PITA. Tried using a GX7 (with addon eyecup) at the beach, i ended up shooting in A mode the whole time. Should have just brought a DSLR. No, i don't like to press the VF cup into my eyeball, not comfortable. An OVF on a DSLR gets brighter as ambient light increases.
Unless you are shooting action with those ND filters, it's not an issue, bc DSLRs have LCD screens too. Voila !!!
Totally depends on your line. Most mirrors are not, most prisms are. One can get a DSLR with prism for pretty cheap nowadays. D300, D7000, D7100, not to mention all Pentax bodies.
Again, your LV feed doesn't show you clipped edges either. You see what the jpeg shows you, nothing more. You don't actually know if you are blowing HL or not. Please argue with me on this.
Most people using DSLRs are not worried about MF, and if they are, it's for stationary things and they can use the LCD. For motion, the OVF is better as your eye isn't waiting on processing. Light moves through an OVF at 186,270 miles per second. If you buy any of the cameras i listed 2 paragraphs above, you can use focus calibration.
But what ML user chimps all day? Battery life won't allow that and we all know it ;-)
--
"You taught me hate, I"ll teach you fear", - Lamb of God, Break You.
Last edited:
DSLR with 3 lenses may be not "fun" to use (actually for me it is), but its images will compensate for that. You cannot beat DOF and bokeh of an APS-C sensor + 50mm f1.8 lens with 1" f2.8 (probably even 3.5 at 75mm equiv), its just not even close.
Last edited:
Add my vote for a Panasonic FZ1000. Besides all of the advantages of the FZ1000 that were posted, here's one more advantage that it has:
The FZ1000 uses the DFD technology to autofocus. Panasonic is the only manufacturer that has DFD fast autofocus in their contrast detect autofocus cameras. Contrast detect autofocus is how all non-DSLRs autofocus so it is used in all manufacturer's cameras that don't use a mirror like DSLRs do. DFD stands for "Depth From Defocus" and it allows Panasonic cameras that use it, to have autofocus speeds approaching that of DSLRs. DFD allows cameras that use it to autofocus about twice as fast as cameras that don't use it.
Here are two links that explain Panasonic's DFD technology:
What is DFD technology - by Panasonic
DFD technology by Imaging-Resource
The links above mention DFD in Panasonic's GH4 camera but DFD is in the FZ1000 as well.
So if you buy a non-DSLR camera from any other manufacturer other than Panasonic, you will not get the fast autofocus speeds that Panasonic cameras with DFD provide. Shooting moving subjects will have a better chance of being in sharp focus using a FZ1000 with DFD technology.
Sky
No matter which camera you get, it will probably be the wrong one. Buy something used with easy control of ISO, Aperture, and shutter speed to learn the basics. You don't want a camera that you have to go into the menus to change basic settings. After a year or two of using this camera, you will have a much better understanding of what camera you need.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum