New to Photography/Camera Question

Hi All - I am new to the hobby and so far, I've been studying about ISO, aperture, and shutter speed, so I would like to be able to take pictures like the amazing ones on this forum, but I don't know too much about a camera that I should use or how much I should spend.

I know that it's not all about the camera as lightning and other factors come into play to get clear/sharp images, so can someone please recommend a descent camera so I can get started?

I am looking to spend up to $300.00.

Thank you, kindly

If you want to get into DSLRs, $300 won't go too far for a camera and a lens or two.

1) What is your location? (helps with finding deals for you)
2) What do you think you will shoot a majority of the time?
3) Would you be offended if someone suggested a non-DSLR, ie. a bridge camera? A bridge camera is what it says it is, it is a higher end consumer camera with a fixed lens, but still will do raw, manual mode, aperture priority, etc. They have the biggest bang for the buck focal range, but the IQ suffers a bit at different points in that focal range. (ie. Canon SX50HS)

If you are in the US, here are various deals that could satisfy your needs:
https://shop.usa.canon​.com …s-ii-lens-kit-refurbished
https://shop.usa.canon​.com …rshot-sx60-hs-refurbished
https://shop.usa.canon​.com …-56-is-ii-kit-refurbished

For a longer lens, look for a 55-250 IS STM on the boards/used market. An 18-55 and 55-250 are two good starter lenses.

Thank you for the speedy reply -

1) Maryland
2) Maryland has a lot of pretty birds so that is my main focus
3) Not at all - I can go up to $500.00 - I've never heard of a bridge camera but I'm reviewing now

Thanks again!

I have a Canon PowerShot that is 16 MP with X50 zoom that I've never used - I don't think I will be able to get images like on here, but since I'm starting out, I will see what this thing can do -


Thanks

Ultrashiver wrote in post #18407513
I have a Canon PowerShot that is 16 MP with X50 zoom that I've never used - I don't think I will be able to get images like on here, but since I'm starting out, I will see what this thing can do -


Thanks

Some of the newer bridge cameras are better than the old, but definitely, it is a good tool to start out on to see what you learned for ISO, etc. Bridge cameras are not very good at all for ISO performance though, that is still a very large gap with them.

Take a look at the Canon refurbs, since you are in the US, they are perfect for you. There are sales all the time, and they give you a 1 year warranty. Almost always, you will get a body that is barely used.

Stay away from the packages that give you the 75-300, the 55-250 IS STM is superior to that lens. The 18-55 IS STM is good. Also, if you go the Refurb section for lenses to look for the 55-250, take a look at the 50 1.8 STM. Another great lens to have, those 3 lenses will be an awesome way to start your photography.

So suggestions beyond the bridge cameras:
- Look for a Refurb deal on Canon that comes with the 18-55 STM and is on sale
- Look in the lens refurb section and find a 55-250 STM and 50 1.8 STM
- When looking at flashes in the future, look at the Godox TT685 or V860II, it gets you a great flash, and opens you up to the Godox/Streaklight family for R2 wireless communications in the future, should you add more lights later.

Thank you for sharing this information with me and I will look into it! Have a good weekend!


Regards,
Ultra

In your price range, some of the best 'bridge' cameras available are older models like the Canon SX(40/50)HS, and the Panazonice DMC-FZ(nnn) like 7, 8, 100, 1000).

EDIT:
I just remembered. A month or so ago, I picked up a used Canon 450D (XSi) and 18-55 II lens for $75. Add a used 55-250 (II or STM) for about $100, and you've got a good general shooting kit. Shop around, it can't hurt.

Ultrashiver wrote in post #18407471
Hi All - I am new to the hobby and so far, I've been studying about ISO, aperture, and shutter speed, so I would like to be able to take pictures like the amazing ones on this forum, but I don't know too much about a camera that I should use or how much I should spend.

I know that it's not all about the camera as lightning and other factors come into play to get clear/sharp images, so can someone please recommend a descent camera so I can get started?

I am looking to spend up to $300.00.

Thank you, kindly

Heya,

What do you want to pictures of? That will determine really what lens(s) you'd need to achieve the goal. The body is much less important when starting out to simply having a working camera.

I will stress, a lot of what you're seeing that is potentially amazing is often a lot of post-processing.

Starting out, just look into a few books or online resources that discuss composition, lighting & exposure. A good photo can be made with any camera if you're focusing on a good composition and exposure for the purpose of the look and seeing light in a different way.

That said, some of the best ways to start is with a used APS-C on the cheap, and add a lens and get to shooting and learn.

Look for an inexpensive APS-C (Canon) for example and buy a kit lens like an EF-S 18-55 STM, it's a very good lens, also used, and then with the rest of your budget, get batteries, a bag or something, etc, and just shoot and learn to process your photos for presentation or print. Shoot a lot with a simple but good lens like that, and learn from it, then let your experience guide your next purchases and where you go with it.

If you decide you want to go Canon, I have a 40D for sale for really cheap, just send me a message if interested.

Very best,

Digital Canon Rebel kit with 18-55 IS and 50-250 IS lenses is possible to find at 500$ mark. People were getting them as gifts (sold as kits on Black Friday and so on), but not using it.

IMO, Digital Canon Rebel series cameras are the best to learn about ISO, aperture and shutter speed relation. I was trying small advanced P&S, but this camera really made me learn about technicalities of photography. Those cameras are really good, I'm still using my Rebel T1i purchased in December of 2008. Rebels are not too large and bulky, yet have real optical viewfinder and normally sized, normally placed controls.

Ultrashiver wrote in post #18407513
I have a Canon PowerShot that is 16 MP with X50 zoom that I've never used - I don't think I will be able to get images like on here, but since I'm starting out, I will see what this thing can do -


Thanks

With the above very general description, I found the Canon Powershot SX540 and looked it up for a description of basic exposure control features

Shooting Modes: M, Av, Tv, P, Live View

...IOW it does nothing different/less for exposure flexibility than you will find in a $2000 (or even $5000) dSLR, and it does more than even a than truly professional grade SLRs of 40 years ago!!

What about metering capability?...

Light Metering Method: Evaluative, Center Weighted Average, Spot

...IOW it does nothing different/less for exposure flexibility than you will find in a $2000 (or even $5000) dSLR, and it does more than even a than truly professional grade SLRs of 40 years ago!!
!

What about shutter speed?...

Shutter Speed : 1-1/2000 sec.; 15-1/2000 sec. (in Tv and M modes)

...IOW it has only a bit less flexibility of shutter speed than you will find in a $2000 dSLR at 1/4000 (or even $5000 dSLR at 1/8000), yet its top shutter speed is faster than truly professional grade SLRs of 40 years ago!

How about zoom range of the lens?...

Focal Length: 4.3 (W) - 215.0 (T) mm (35mm film equivalent: 24-1200mm)

...IOW it gives up nothing vs. a typical dSLR for FL capability, although its lens is fixed to the body rather than interchangeable! Yes, a dSLR can allow the use of lenses with faster max apertures, but not all shooting is done needing the fast aperture lens

What you already own is a fine platform to LEARN the mastery of the fundamentals about technical aspects of the craft
And learning and mastery of compositional skills can be done with a $300 camera or a $3000 camera, both with only a 'normal lens' mounted on it

I suggest getting comfortable with what you have, and AFTER you learn a lot more where its LIMITATIONS are impeding your ability to shoot -- and after you figure out if a dSLR's capabilities are any better in that area,
you are ready to make an informed and wise purchase decision! Any sooner and you are merely throwing money at the issue in an UNINFORMED and UNEDUCATED fit of G.A.S.

And buying a nice USED dSLR -- even one which is 4-6 years old -- will expand the capabilities of the camera past the limitations of what you currently use. But armed with knowledge, you will be less likely to simply be throwing money away on an unwise choice.

At this point you have no idea of needs or desires specific enough for folks to make 'best choice for your NEEDS' recommendations. It is a bit like asking

Q: I need to buy a car, what do I get?
A1: Buy a Fiat
A2: Buy a Chevy Malibu
A3: Buy a Porsche convertible
A4: Buy a Ford F150 pickup
A5: Buy a Hummvee

...all very different vehicles suitable for very different purposes, but which one fits your needs?

There are $500 dslrs that can shoot at 1/8000, so one doesn't have to buy a $5000 DSLR to get that.

Also the IQ of Canons PowerShot cameras are generally lacking once you hit ISO 800 or above, they get very noisy very quickly.

Good to learn on, but one will hit their limits pretty quickly.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18407624
There are $500 dslrs that can shoot at 1/8000, so one doesn't have to buy a $5000 DSLR to get that.

Also the IQ of Canons PowerShot cameras are generally lacking once you hit ISO 800 or above, they get very noisy very quickly.

Good to learn on, but one will hit their limits pretty quickly.

IOW, yes, the RANGE of circumstances (darker places, faster moving things, etc.) will broaden when changing from bridge camera to dSLR, but the fundamentals of photography can be successfully learned on even your current bridge camera

ISO 320 film (at its peak speed that was all you could get for a long time) did not prevent the 'masters' of photography 50 years ago from achieving fame in their photographic accomplishments, using 'primitive' SLRs with 1/1000 shutter speed limits. Yes, they could not shoot folks running down dark streets, nor can you if limited by your current camera. I marvel at how 'handicapped' folks feel when their digital camera is 'limited' to 1/4000 or ISO 6400!

Agreed, my only points were to correct the idea that you had to pay mightily for a DSLR that shoots 1/8000th, as you called out, and that isn't the case, and that if the goal is to get great pictures like what is seen here, one has to keep the ISO down on these cameras.

I have a bridge camera and know quite a bit about it and its limitations. It is only useful in the best of circumstances, and terrible for sports and low light. In fact my bridge camera is one of the more recent from Canon, and still leaves a bit on the table for IQ. It is probably pretty close to the SX530 HS, which is what the TS probably has.

As to the topic of what we used to do in the past, who really cares what was able to be photographed then using film? Expectations are different now, we have moved beyond the capabilities of then. Take two good photographers, and give them an old film camera with ISO 400 or less film, and then give them today's FF DSLR, and have them go out to shoot challenging scenes. Their DSLR results will be faster to market, and look better. And I am from the film era, dating to the A-1 days...

1/8000th is needed with a lens like the 85L unless you want to go out and get ND filters. ISO 50 on the cameras today are fake ISOs, so they don't really help any. Even the first digital 1D had a 1/16000 electronic shutter, it would be nice to have that again. ISO 6400 or higher is needed in sporting events where flashes/strobes are not allowed and you want to stop the action, you weren't doing that in the film days with ISO 400 film. You could catch some action at the apex of a jump or dunk or hit, but who wants to be constrained to just those moments these days?

Heck, we used to only manually focus and pull off shots too, I don't understand why people want 61 pt AF? I mean, who would desire such newer tech these days when people could take film cameras and manually focus and follow birds in flight and find a keeper in 1 out of 10 rolls of film? I really think people roll their eyes each time they hear the stories of how "we used to walk uphill to school, both ways", and I think I actually did!

How many tries with an old film camera would you have to capture this without strobes/flash using 1/1000th or slower at ISO 400? By the way, a Canon bridge camera won't do this either, so it is in probably good company with the golden days of film bodies.

I am not arguing that one should 'make due with less' ultimately! My point was that the very limited range imposed upon the pros of old did not prevent them from learning mastery of exposure and composition, so neither should a bridge camera (which has far broader range the the film cameras of old!)

I might argue that you better learn mastery when you are artifically limited in what you are allowed to do, and relying upon creativity to be forced into action.
Go out one day and shoot only at a SINGLE FL, rather than changing from WA for landscape to long tele for birds in flight on the same outing!

Hey man, if you've got any camera just start shooting.
You will learn a lot of basics by just trying... and in the non-film world today it's cheap and easy to learn.