If you were to start over again

What do you think of this,
If one was to just get involved with photography and one did not want to spend a ton of money, what would you do?


1: Canon 20D with cheap glass (18-35mm)
2: G7

From these two groups, what will produce great photos on a consistent basis?

Now I know the versatility of having an SLR over a point and shoot, but if one was given as a gift for these two options...

Hi Don,

To me it is clear as well ...

1) What would you select - 20D
2) What will produce great images on consistent basis - 20D (if you know how to use it)

Best regards,
Andy

Just starting out and not wanting to spend a ton, I would definitely go for the G7. For someone starting you want to get excellent quality photos right away without a lot of fiddling and experimentation. The G7 is a very capable camera and has just about all the features one would want with maybe the exception of RAW. It has all of the style modes so it can get someone into the activity very quickly while at the same time taking care of a lot of the setup issues that can ruin a great shot. Get the shooting first, work on composure; work on lighting, work on the artistic side of photography first. Soon enough the technical aspects come out and the G7 is capable of handling many of those as well. Once the photographer outgrows the G7 capabilities they will be ready for the next step.

But keep in mind that if you want to use some of the creative aspects of photography that you used and know on your film SLR (first and foremost for me: shallow DOF) you might feel limited by a small sensor camera about 5 minutes into your first shoot.

At least that was the case for me when I got my G2 for 800$ (the 10D being somewhere in the 2000$ range at that time, quite out of my reach).
Nowadays, having an XT+EF 50/1.8 available for 600$ would be a godsend for me if I started out new.

Your mileage might vary.

Best regards,
Andy

dharris wrote in post #2863779
What do you think of this,
If one was to just get involved with photography and one did not want to spend a ton of money, what would you do?

Part of your answer might be right there. What's the absolute most you want to spend? If that prices you out of a 20D (or other DSLR) + a decent lens then you can scratch that option off the list (and focus on point & shoots)

A brand new G7 is a really nice camera for $460 (B&H). DSLR body plus whatever lens you're thinking of is...?

Neither option will produce "great" photos on a consistant basis.

I would say spend some time and think about what you will really be using the camera for. If you are just starting out, but plan to really push into it the better 20D is probably going to work better and longer for you.

If you are starting out and not sure how into it you will go or dont want to lug around a very nice but large camera + equipment then the G7 might be best.

I picked the G7 over an XTi because for my needs I needed something I could easily take with me places. Sadly very quickly I realized the limitations of the camera. I love it and will keep it and use it for a long time. Someday I will get an SLR but for now I just dont really need one other than just for "fun" which I cannot afford to much of right now. You can buy accessories for the G7 etc to help it along and for the money you get one great camera with enough advanced features to keep you learning and having fun, but not enough to overshadow an SLR by any means.

Good luck.

Benandbobbi wrote in post #2870263
Neither option will produce "great" photos on a consistant basis.

That would depend on what you would classify "great" as.

I would also consider the value loss (both the financial value and the photographic value) of the camera.

Certainly, you don't buy a camera as an investment object, but you would most likely like it to keep some value and be a usable photographic instrument for some time to come. To be quite clear ... the camera does not lose its 'value' as a camera from you using it. It will continue to make great images (assuming that is what you buy it for in the first place), but technological advancement will raise the standards and mayb e your expectations.

In early 2003, I bought a G2 for about 900$ ... at this time maybe not the apex of technology, but as good as you could get a camera below 1000$.
About 2 years later, I got a 20D in early 2005 for about 1200$ ... a bit more expensive, but not substantially more.
Now when I look at the value (both the financial value and the photographic value) 2 years after the purchase ... the G2 was quite outdated by the time I got the 20D. I kept it as a backup, but have since very rarely used it. Resale value? Forget about it.

When I look at my 20D now (also 2 years after buying it, same time when I upgraded from my G2), to be honest, it feels as if I just bought it yesterday. It is certainly in no way outdated, and I will continue to use it for quite some time. To be honest, it's the camera I have wanted all my life (had a NOINK SLR, but seldom used it because getting images processed was a PITA). Sure, a 5D or 1DMKIII would be nice to have, but this is nothing compared to the longing glances I had at about any dSLR with a big sensor when I was still using my G2.

Since getting the 20D, I have been adding some good lenses to it and if I decided I want to sell it now, I would be confident of getting maybe half the money I paid for it back.

So ... morale of the story?

I personally found the compact camera lacking in some respects that were vital for me, and was very eager to make the upgrade when dSLRs became available at 'normal' prices (launch of 300D). If there is a possibility that photography might be more than 'just another hobby' for you and you don't want to take the camera wherever you go, then I'd suggest to get the dSLR.

Best regards,
Andy

I started out some 62 years ago.
The cameras I have had include ....

A rex( Pure rubbish) but got me hooked.
A simple Voigtlander Brilliant with F7.7 Voigtar and 3 shutter speeds.
A ensign selfix 16/20 Ross expres lens A huge improvement
a Thornton picard ruby reflex 1/4 plate (Glass plates)
An agfa sollinette 2 with 3.5 apotar. my first 35mm
A rolleicord V 3.5 xenar
A rolleiflex 3.5 tessar
A baby rolleiflex with a rubbish 3.5 xenar lens for super slides.
A Gandolfi 5x4 with several lenses
A MPP MK7 with several lenses
A leica 111c
A MPP monorail with several lenses
A Crown Graphic 5x4
A Pentax s1 and lenses
A minolta Autocord
A Olympus OM1 with lenses.
A Olympus XA
A canon G3
A canon G6
A minolta G600

All these cameras have taught me something and earned a crust along the way.
Added up they would cost the equivalent of many thousands of pounds.

I could not have done every thing with just one of them.
The best any one can do is Buy what fills your needs as they are now.
Tomorrow your needs will have changed as will the cameras on offer.
Always get the best you can afford.......

Terry,

that's quite an impressive list of equipment ... OK, you mentioned in your sig. line 'wasted money on cameras'
just out of curiosity - know that you are happy with your G series and one of its fiercest advocates here on the forum - are you not at all interested in a dSLR?

There are some things you could do with that that are a bit difficult with the G series...

Best regards,
Andy

If you do opt for a dSLR might I suggest looking at a digital rebel instead and better glass...or go used and put the savings towards more/better quality lenses. That's not to say I'd pick the dSLR but if that's the road you go down I'd rather own a quality used 10D with L glass then a 20D and the kit lens

If you have self control, I'd say go for a used 20D+18-55 (kit lens)+50/1.8. A great combination for the price (maybe $700). The problem is, as you learn the camera you will want better lenses, and it will start out with $500 lenses (70-200/4L is a great choice in that area), then you'll be looking at $1000-2000 lenses (w/Image Stabilization), and so on....

If you are like me with little or no self control, go for the G7.

dharris wrote in post #2863779
What do you think of this,
If one was to just get involved with photography and one did not want to spend a ton of money, what would you do?

1: Canon 20D with cheap glass (18-35mm)
2: G7

Each camera has its strengths and weaknesses, but I would recommend the G7 for someone just starting. It has enough features to "grow in to", and isn't overly expensive.

Neither... and both.

Andythaler wrote in post #2880314
Terry,

that's quite an impressive list of equipment ... OK, you mentioned in your sig. line 'wasted money on cameras'
just out of curiosity - know that you are happy with your G series and one of its fiercest advocates here on the forum - are you not at all interested in a dSLR?

There are some things you could do with that that are a bit difficult with the G series...

Best regards,

Andy

Hi Andy

There are a lot of nice things about the G6
however it does not rally handle noise well and the view finder is poor. nor is the sensor really large enough for hi Quality.
But As I am retired now and only take shots for my self, or a few projects for the local museum, it is good enough... I don't have to be a professional any more.

As far as DSLR go things are changing .. some have added moveable screens. live displays and are starting to sort the noise and dust problems.
But every thing out there is very much in transition, there are bound to be greatly improved sensors soon, as the new discoveries work their way. through.
In the meantime I will make do with what I have. If I getan actual need I will buy a DSLR, but I know it would only be a short term stop gap.
I would be more inclined to go with a better range finder type camera with say a moveable screen and a larger and better sensor that took M style lenses. I have no use at all for long lenses.( nor have I ever)

I have used mirror flapping cameras all my life. And even though there is now the means to do with out them, it is still the route camera makers are going down.