Recommendations for camera

3rr0r · May 13, 2013

Hi there,

I need recommendations for camera.

I'm a beginner and I want to do the following things with the camera
- I want to shoot landscapes
- the pics should have high resolution
- the camera should have bright colours
- lightweight wouldn't be bad too
- Budget: Let's say it's limitless, because I want a high quality camera that's practical; I don't need a fancy camera with a brand that's "in" or that's cool. I just need one that's doing it's job like it should be.

- I want to be able to play with exposure and capture light such as these two pics:

(I shot this)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8463/8354127746_1025c1491e_z.jpg

What do you think about the Sony NEX-5R (a mirrorless camera)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-nex-5r/Z-sony-nex5r-beauty.jpg[/IMG]
Sony NEX-5R review: can the best mirrorless camera get even better? | The Verge

Or what about this one: Olympus E-520
http://tellado.es/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/olympus-e-520.jpg
Olympus E-520 Review: Digital Photography Review

Thanks in advance

David444 · May 13, 2013

3rr0r · May 13, 2013

Thanks for answering. Where do you guys usually buy your cameras?

David444 · May 13, 2013

hirejn · May 13, 2013

If you're a beginner hoping paying a bit more for a better camera will improve your photography, you're in for a wasteful trip down Equipment Addiction Lane. Expensive cameras are cool, but having a cool camera does you little good when you stare at a strip of poor exposures and mediocre shots on your computer and wonder why the pros are doing so much better. Here's the best clue I can give you: It's not the gear. Get the entry-level DSLR that you like and pay no more. Entry-levels enable you to make prints larger than 20x30 all day, have superb quality, and have the tools you need to master the fundamentals. Can you take great images with a more expensive camera? Absolutely. Do you need a more expensive camera to take great images? Absolutely not. If you have the money and just want the cool factor, get an expensive camera. Just don't expect your photography to be any better. I know -- the fundamentals are boring. Who wants to start out learning about photography? But that's where the better images are.

Derrel · May 13, 2013

Nikon D3100, 18-55 lens, 50-200 VR telephoto zoom lens. $499, right now, on inventory clearance. That is about 50% less than what the same setup cost a year ago. Nikon is discounting cameras and lenses like crazy to try and sell more units. The Oly E-series has a tiny sensor, and frankly, I think the night-time and low-light and HIGH-ISO image quality compares poorly with that from larger-sensor cameras like the D3100. I cannot understand who the Oly E-series was made for...

duhast · May 13, 2013

Side-by-side camera comparison: Digital Photography Review

KmH · May 13, 2013

A camera can only 'do it's job' when run by a photographer that has the knowledge and skill needed to maximize the camera's features and functions.
In other words, there will be a learning curve involved.

So just about any brand/model of entry-level DSLR will fit your bill. I'm with Derrel as far as recommending the Nikon D3100 and it's 18-55 mm/55-200 mm kit lenses.

Hopefully the OP is in the US.
According to Nikon's USA web site, the $499 kit does not include a VR capable 55-200 mm lens -
Nikon Store - Buy Nikon DSLR Camera & Digital SLR Cameras - NIKON Store

The $499 kit - Nikon D3100 14.2MP Digital SLR Double Zoom Lens Kit with 18-55mm, 55-200mm DX Zoom Lenses

A VR capable 55-200 mm will cost you $100 more - Nikon D3100 14.2MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm VR, 55-200mm VR DX Zoom Lenses and 3-Inch LCD Screen (Black

kpsmithuk · May 13, 2013

hirejn said:
If you're a beginner hoping paying a bit more for a better camera will improve your photography, you're in for a wasteful trip down Equipment Addiction Lane. Expensive cameras are cool, but having a cool camera does you little good when you stare at a strip of poor exposures and mediocre shots on your computer and wonder why the pros are doing so much better. Here's the best clue I can give you: It's not the gear. Get the entry-level DSLR that you like and pay no more. Entry-levels enable you to make prints larger than 20x30 all day, have superb quality, and have the tools you need to master the fundamentals. Can you take great images with a more expensive camera? Absolutely. Do you need a more expensive camera to take great images? Absolutely not. If you have the money and just want the cool factor, get an expensive camera. Just don't expect your photography to be any better. I know -- the fundamentals are boring. Who wants to start out learning about photography? But that's where the better images are.

Amen and enough said there.

Ive just gone digital having used an old av-1 35mm film camera for a few years, my 1st slr.

Now with film cameras and film seemingly really in decline i figured it would be good to play with a dslr. I've just invested in an EOS 20D which isn't the muts nuts or a pro camera but will let me continue to develop my slr skills and also get some decent quality photos (in theory)

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

3rr0r · May 13, 2013

Thanks of all the replies, especially those who advised me against buying a 2000$ gadget I probably couldn't handle.

But may I ask why you recommend DSLR cameras? Why are they "superior" in comparison to my kodak digital camera?

Thanks in advance.

3rr0r · May 13, 2013

KmH said:
Hopefully the OP is in the US.

Nah. I'm living in Germany.

EDIT: In Germany there's a similar product offered for even less:
http://www.saturn.de/mcs/product/NI...FfLKtAod-w8A5w&etcc_ctv=22521715858&etcc_mty=

KmH · May 13, 2013

Interchangeable lenses is a big + for DSLRs.

A location in your profile helps people give information that might only apply where you are.

Gavjenks · May 13, 2013

3rr0r said:
Thanks of all the replies, especially those who advised me against buying a 2000$ gadget I probably couldn't handle.

But may I ask why you recommend DSLR cameras? Why are they "superior" in comparison to my kodak digital camera?

Thanks in advance.

I use a DSLR because:

1) it is currently the best exchangable lens system being used. This doesn't logically HAVE to be the case, but it is. DSLRs for whatever reason just have the best lens selection today.
1a) Since the body of a camera is inherently just a dark box, it is much less important than the glass. So the most cost effective way to expand my photographic capabilities is to have one body and pay for new glass that can do new things. Obviously, the best selection of lenses = the best way to pursue this strategy.
1b) Small selection of lenses (or zero selection if not removable at all) means that non-DSLRs have more "general purpose" optics. This means you will be limited in your ability to push the limits of photography. Zoom lenses are always optically inferior to prime (fixed focal length) lenses, for example, and by having a general purpose one, you also can't do niche things. E.g. extreme telephoto, or very wide, or tilt-shift, etc., because no system would ever have an extremely wide lens as its ONLY built in lens. That sort of thing only makes sense on a swappable lens platform.

2) Composing your image on an LCD screen is really effing annoying. And the vast majority of mirrorless cameras these days only havd LCDs + mediocre, off-center viewfinders. The whole point of a SLR is a perfect, true-to-life viewfinder image for accurate composition (and also fundamentally better auto-light-metering and autofocus).

However, mirrorless cameras are generally better suited for you if your main concern is size and bulk. In that case, buy a high-end "point and shoot" that will allow you to adjust all the variables like aperture, etc. and has a reasonably useful lens, but will still fit in your pocket.

OR if you are on the OTHER extreme, and don't care about mobility at all, but simply want the absolute best optical properties for shooting fixed landscapes, like you said you wanted to... then you may also want a DIFFERENT kind of mirrorless lens. You may want to use an old-fashioned view camera (literal box with an accordion bellows and a lens in a board in the front, with film placed on the back, usually shot on a tripod stand). View cameras are harder to us, but they offer massive advantages over DSLRs if you really are committed to landscape photography.

Namely, a view camera has built in tilt and shiftcapabilities, which gives you much greater control over perspective and focal plane in situations where you can't move easily (like when you are photographing miles and miles of landscape and can't choose your position with freedom, or if shooting architecture).

Also, medium or large format will give you massively better image resolution than a DSLR, which is often useful if you want to print a big wide 8 foot long panorama of a landscape for a hallway or something, and people are going to be inspecting each part up close.

If you don't want to shoot 100% landscapes or still subjects, though, this may be a poor choice, since it is hard to set up, expensive per shot, and very non-mobile.