# Beginner Camera?



## endofnight (Jul 21, 2010)

Hello all.

I am not a professional photographer. I just really enjoy taking pictures. That being said I want a camera that can take AMAZING pictures. I would describe myself as a "beginner" photographer.

The camera I use now is a Canon Powershot A530. You can see it here:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B000EMU888]Amazon.com: Canon PowerShot A530 5MP Digital Camera with 4x Optical Zoom: Camera & Photo[/ame]

I am looking for a great camera that can take amazing pictures. So far I am very impressed with the Canon 5d Mach II. The HD video quality blows my mind! The pictures are equally impressive. I won't lie. The fact that this camera can take HD video is a big part of why I want it!

This is an expensive camera. I have no problem saving up the money for it. I just dont want to waste a bunch of money when I can get something equally as good for a lower price. Also, I have read about a beginner who bought a 5d mach II and it took them 9 months to learn how to to use it! Would it be "right" for a beginner like myself or is there another camera that can take equally amazing pictures for cheaper? 

I would basically be using this camera for EVERYTHING. Taking pictures of my friends, concerts, nature, still objects, portraits, my 6 year old niece running around, etc...

I would greatly appreciate any information. Thanks for your time.


----------



## Sam6644 (Jul 21, 2010)

All cameras work the same way, they just have buttons in different places. 

No camera makes AMAZING photos, just the same as no gun ever killed a person. 

Pick a lens system that you like, probably Canon or Nikon, and then buy a camera that fits on them. 

I suggest the Canon t2i. It costs $800 and you can get a 50mm lens for it for $89. As a beginner it will be easy for you to learn on and as a hobbiest you are never going to out-grow it. 

Having said that, I'll repeat, all cameras essentially work the exact same way. If it took someone nine months to use a 5D, it would have taken just as long to learn a $300 Canon XS.


----------



## deannamb (Jul 21, 2010)

Any camera is gonna be a beginner's camera so long as a beginner is using it.


----------



## iAstonish (Jul 22, 2010)

I will suggest the Nikon d5000. HD video capable and about half the price of the 5d. Not to say the d5000 is as good as the Canon 5d, because it isn't, but it does have some nice features, especially for the price.

It has the same sensor as the Nikon d90, which has a very similar sensor to it's "big brother" the d300, so your optically quality will be top notch. The d5000 also has good high iso capability. 

The build isn't as good as the 5d's though and the 5d is full frame. But if your main goal is to find a good camera to learn on that has hd video and can take great pictures, the Nikon d5000 is more than capable.


----------



## UUilliam (Jul 22, 2010)

^ a canon suggesting a Nikon :O
 lol.



> I would basically be using this camera for EVERYTHING. Taking pictures  of my friends, concerts, nature, still objects, portraits, my 6 year old  niece running around, etc...


Think again.
 If you think you will be allowed a foot in the door to a concert with a DSLR think again.
 You could apply for a press pass but other than that, no chance.

 Also, a Canon 5D MII, Really?
 If you have the money, I suppose, why not.
 but can you REALLY justify the cost of it + lens' (which you would be wanting to use L lens otherwise the camera body would not justify itself (lens' are as if inot more important than the body.)
 L lens' range from about £800 - £6000 or more.
 but these lens' are top quality optics,

and no camera will make AMAZING photos, you do. there is no magic formula, you have to learn to use it.
if you plan on taking snapshots, DO NOT BUY A DSLR (or expensive one atleast.)
Sony do some nice Bridge (hybrid) cameras that could suit you better.
and you even have a chance of getting that into a concert.

Fuji has a bridge camera that is so tiny, it will fit in your pocket, but the quality is amazing.
(aunt has it.) and the zoom is not too bad.


----------



## endofnight (Jul 22, 2010)

Sam6644-So you think I should go with the Canon t2i because it is easy to learn? Would it take me considerably longer to learn a 5d mach II?

Deannamb-You were no help at all. Thanks though. 

iAstonish-Thanks for the info. The Nikon d5000 sounds like a nice camera. I'm looking more into it. Are there any cameras in the Canon line similar to the d5000? They dont have to have HD video.

UUilliam-When I said concerts what I really meant was punk shows and house parties. I go to Alot of concerts where the band does not care and the "club" owner or whoever could care less. I'm not talking about sneaking in this camera into a U2 concert.

Why a Canon 5d mk II? Well, Like I said before it would be nice to take pictures and HD video of my friends, nature, still objects, weddings, animals at the zoo etc... with an AWESOME camera. While I agree that the quality comes from the person taking the picture, you cant seriously tell me that a picture from the 5d mach II and a picture from a Canon powershot have the same quality. That simply can't be true. If it is, I apologize because then I am truly ignorant! 

Why not buy a DSLR for taking snapshots? Are you telling me that people using a 5d mach II only take pictures if they can set up a tripod and take their time etc...? Not trying to sound stupid. Just curious.

Can you point me the direction of these Sony Hybrids you are talking about?

Lastly, two of your statements seem to contradict one another:

"no camera will make AMAZING photos" 

and 

"Fuji has a bridge camera...the quality is amazing."

Would appreciate any more info anyone has for me. Thanks again for your time. I appreciate all the help so far!


----------



## Sam6644 (Jul 22, 2010)

It wouldn't take you any longer to learn on a 5DMKII, but the 5D would be a complete waste of money for someone looking to take photos as a hobbyist. 

It would be like somebody who only plays golf one time a year buying a set of $10,000 golf clubs.


----------



## endofnight (Jul 22, 2010)

Samm6644-This whole conversation is turning into a mess. I just want a great camera to take pictures with. It seems like when you start talking about high end DSLR's people look at you funny unless you are a "professional." I may be missing something here but I just dont get it.

Well, either way thanks for your opinion. I'll be looking into some lower end cameras.


----------



## endofnight (Jul 22, 2010)

Ok, after checking out the Canon t2i I am pretty much sold! looks like a great camera and the HD video looks awesome.

Anymore suggestions?


----------



## KmH (Jul 22, 2010)

Don't forget to remove the lens cap. :thumbup:


----------



## UUilliam (Jul 22, 2010)

People dont look funny when you say you want a 5dmii because your not pro, it is because, the 5dmii has a higher level of use than a 500D /550D (T2I)

Also, my comment did not contradict.

An Amazing photo vs Amazing quality is different.

an amazing photo consists of composition, exposure, colour, subject etc...

quality = sharp, good noise, good colour and stuff like that.


Top 10 Bridge cameras ? gadget reviews ? Stuff.tv

I mixed up panasonic with sony, sorry.

You simply wont justify the cost of buying a 5d + lenses

I say, go with the canon 500 or 550D and buy a few "cheap" lenses (i say cheap as they still cost a lot but not as much as L lenses.)
a good one is the 50mm mkii 1.8, kit lens and a 70 - 300 mm USM (all them together cost about £500 = total spend ~ £1000-£1300

Also, Professional doesnt mean you use a tripod 
I never use a tripod.
i am not professional either mind you.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 22, 2010)

Sam6644 said:


> It wouldn't take you any longer to learn on a 5DMKII, but the 5D would be a complete waste of money for someone looking to take photos as a hobbyist.
> 
> It would be like somebody who only plays golf one time a year buying a set of $10,000 golf clubs.



I don't think that's a very good analogy...


I would say it's more like a person who 'just drives around town, and to work and back' buying a Mercedes.

Yes, it's way more than you need - but it's still really nice to have, and you can use it every day.

Some people _want_ to 'waste' their money on nice things.


And yeah - a 'better' camera won't really be harder to learn on...  It might even be easier.  Still, the difference would be negligible.


----------



## Sparky1358 (Jul 25, 2010)

Canon and Nikon are both exellent brands. Take the time to hold each one in your hands.

For me Nikon's just felt right. The canon models did not. Its a personal preference for sure. Just the way the butons are laid out and size of hands.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 25, 2010)

Sam6644 said:


> It wouldn't take you any longer to learn on a 5DMKII, but the 5D would be a complete waste of money for someone looking to take photos as a hobbyist.



Wow, really?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 25, 2010)

Well, let's get real. If you want to spend $2,400-$2699 on a camera body, as a beginner, get a camera that is suitable for a beginner. You want video capture capability, which is understandabkle, but in my experience, the Canon 5D line has very weak light metering and weak autofocusing when used by inexperienced users...and even with an experienced shooter behind the eyepiece (me, 30+ years), the autofocusing of the 5D-II is weak. I think the Canon 5D series of cameras are designed to be used by experts, and that the camera does not have enough automation or high-tech 'stuff' to make a good beginner's camera.

A better camera to use as a high-end point and shoot would be a Canon 7D, for $1500 for the body, or the Nikon D700, also around the $2,450 mark, like the Canon 5D. Both are more high-tech, and suitable for beginners.

Nikon has a much more logical and **consistent** (from mode-to-mode) way to control camera settings than Canon bodies do. I see no problem with a beginner buying a higher-end camera, like the Canon 7D or Canon 5D Mark II, or the Nikon D3 or D700...if you buy any one of those fine cameras, your investment will be serving you for many years to come.

The full-frame cameras like the 5D-II and Nikon D700 have much bigger,larger viewfinders, so seeing what tyou are shooting is easier with the FF cameras. People drop 30-40 grand on a car all the time...why not spend $2,500 on a decent camera???


----------



## Sam6644 (Jul 25, 2010)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Sam6644 said:
> 
> 
> > It wouldn't take you any longer to learn on a 5DMKII, but the 5D would be a complete waste of money for someone looking to take photos as a hobbyist.
> ...



for a first camera, yeah really.


----------



## KmH (Jul 25, 2010)

Sam6644 said:


> Sw1tchFX said:
> 
> 
> > Sam6644 said:
> ...


Nah! :thumbdown:


----------



## D-B-J (Jul 25, 2010)

KmH said:


> Sam6644 said:
> 
> 
> > Sw1tchFX said:
> ...


 
I disagree!


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 25, 2010)

D-B-J said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Sam6644 said:
> ...



With which part?  



The only possible negative I see to starting out with a better camera is that it costs more.  Sometimes that's an issue, sometimes it's not.  The OP has said nothing about budget.

If budget is not an issue, I say go for the best.  Why screw around with anything else unless you have to due to budget constraints?


----------



## D-B-J (Jul 25, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...


 

good point. alot of us are forced to choose certain levels of camera's because of budget constraints.  If thats not an issue, why not go all out?


----------



## subscuck (Jul 25, 2010)

When I upgraded to my 50D about a year and a half ago, money was literally no object. I could have bought a 1Ds and a full complement of L glass. I personally couldn't justify it based on the type of shooting I do and the fact that I don't make a living off of my gear. So I bought a 50D and upgraded my Canon 50 1.4 to a Sigma 50 1.4.

If you're a rank beginner and you buy a 5DII, and you make the commitment to learn to use it, and you _do learn _touse it, I see no problem. The problem I have is when people with more money than common sense buy 5D's, 1D's etc., and then sit them on the shelf because they aren't getting the Nat Geo type pics they thought they would with _no understanding _of cams or photography. It's the mindset of a great cam/lens will give me great pics. And then they post on forums asking "I've got a 1Ds and 100-400L, what settings should I use for my kids soccer game?" or "How do I put my 1D in portrait mode?" Really?

At the end of the day, it's their money to spend and I ain't the one holding the purse strings. Sometimes though, a little common sense is in order.


----------



## Sam6644 (Jul 25, 2010)

I'm just saying, for someone who might not even feel like taking many photos a year from now, there isn't much of a reason to spend over $2000 on a camera when as a beginner, they will get pretty similar results out of an $800 camera. 

Having a $2400 camera isn't going to make him get good at photography any faster and I doubt having a more expensive camera will effect the enjoyment he gains from taking photos. 

If it becomes something you really like and think it's a hobby worth investing multiple thousands of dollars in, you can always sell your camera and upgrade. 

I mean, if you're the kind of person who just like to be sure you have the most expensive thing you can afford, even if you don't understand how to use it to it's limits, or require the technical quality it provide then yeah, I guess it makes sense to spend more than twice as much as you need to on a new toy. 

If you want to learn photography, feel out a new hobby and have some fun while still having a fantastic piece of equipment that will fulfill all of your needs and then some, there is not reason to spend anymore than $600-800. 

People in this thread are starting to sound like the sharks at the local camera store trying to make commission or something. You going to insist he purchase a third party warranty too?

Somebody buying a 5DMKII as their first camera is just plain silly and frivolous.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 25, 2010)

Sam6644 said:


> People in this thread are starting to sound like the sharks at the local camera store trying to make commission or something. You going to insist he purchase a third party warranty too?



Wow, really?

People blow tons of money on stupid **** every day.

I remember when sportballer (I think that's his name) first joined here...

He was saying how he would love to have a 5D ... and how he just bought a Lotus.

It's all about priorities.

In his most recent thread, he said he sold the Lotus and bought a Hassy with a digital back.  Again - it's all about the priorities.

Not everyone has the same budget...  Some people just like to have nice things.

I don't know how many people I know that drive a BMW or Mercedes, but other than their car have few 'nice things'.  Everyone has something they dump too much money into.

Last time I bought a new car, I could have gotten a Mustang - I got a Taurus instead.


----------



## usayit (Jul 25, 2010)

Sam6644 said:


> Somebody buying a 5DMKII as their first camera is just plain silly and frivolous.



I agree.. on the other hand, it is their money.

I've seen beginners place unnecessary stress on themselves to produce professional level results simply because they plopped down so much of their money on expensive equipment.  

There is also subtile design differences between high end professional cameras and consumer level cameras that appeal directly to their intended markets.  These differences can result in a much different experience.. one that caters to beginners and another to the more advanced user.


----------



## endofnight (Jul 27, 2010)

Sparky1358- For some reason I have always been fond of Canon. I don't know if this is true but I always thought that they "take" better pictures. I will definitely go out and hold both brands to see for myself before buying though!

Derrel-Thanks for the recommendation. I have pretty much decided against the 5d mach II. Although, I have no problem saving up the money for one, I think it would be better overall if I got a cheaper camera.

You mention the 7d which I have heard great things about but I'm actually considering this camera:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Canon-T2i-3-0-Inch-18-135mm-Standard/dp/B003MAKXMA/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1280254819&sr=8-4]Amazon.com: Canon EOS Rebel T2i 18 MP CMOS APS-C Digital SLR Camera with 3.0-Inch LCD and EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS UD[/ame]

Do you know anything about it? It's cheaper than the 7d. The HD video is pretty awesome, and the pictures look great.

I will probably end up buying a T2i. What do you think?

Subscuck- "The problem I have is when people with more money than common sense buy 5D's, 1D's etc., and then sit them on the shelf because they aren't getting the Nat Geo type pics they thought they would with no understanding of cams or photography. It's the mindset of a great cam/lens will give me great pics. And then they post on forums asking "I've got a 1Ds and 100-400L, what settings should I use for my kids soccer game?" or "How do I put my 1D in portrait mode?" "

the 5d's and 1d's seem harder to use. Do you think I will trouble with the Canon t2i?


Well, like I said before, I think I'm gonna get a Canon t2i. Anybody know what the Nikon "equivalent" is? Anymore information would be nice. Any comments or information on the Canon t2i would be especially helpful.

Thanks again for everyones help!


----------



## KmH (Jul 27, 2010)

endofnight said:


> . Anybody know what the Nikon "equivalent" is? Anymore information would be nice.


The Nikon equivelent is the D90, the first dSLR to come with video. The T2i has better video and is Canon's second attempt to compete with the D90, but the D90 is still a little better as a still camera:

DxOMark - Compare sensors


----------



## subscuck (Jul 27, 2010)

endofnight said:


> the 5d's and 1d's seem harder to use. Do you think I will trouble with the Canon t2i?


 
I think you missed my point a little. You will struggle with any SLR *until you understand the mechanics of photography and how your camera works and fits in with said mechanics.* A T2i or Nikon equivalent will not be easier to learn, but they will have auto modes on them that will give you a crutch to take pics with until you start learning about the photographic process. The more you understand about what makes a picture, the more you will understand aperture, shutter speed, ISO, metering, etc. The more you understand those things, the more consistently you will get the "amazing" pics you're looking for.

Get an entry level body and sink some money into nice glass. At some point you'll outgrow the body, but not the glass. The glass will give you better IQ with an entry level body, and you'll keep them when you upgrade the body. Remember, the biggest difference is *you and what you know, not the camera.* I would also suggest you get "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. There are other good books out there as well, but that's a good one to start with and if you read and apply it, you'll be well ahead of the curve.


----------



## endofnight (Jul 28, 2010)

Ok, I have made a temporary decision: the Canon t2i. But here's the thing. After looking at online test videos and sample pictures for both the t2i and the D90 I am now more confused than ever! 

Hate to start another debate but would love to get everyones opinion again...

D90 vs. the t2i (& maybe the Canon 7d) 

not sure if the 7d would be wise for me as a beginner. What do you think? Can I justify that price?

what are your opinions on both? Pros and cons on both?

I've already looked at some comparisons online. They are mostly technical gibberish. I would rather hear from you guys.

Most likely I'll get the t2i. Still love to hear what you guys think.

Thanks!


----------



## Sam6644 (Jul 28, 2010)

The Canons both blow the D90 away in video. 

The 7D has a metal, weather-sealed body. 

The D90 will likely be replaced by a new camera very soon.

The t2i is cheaper than the 7D and the D90. 

The t2i is less than a year old, the 7D is about a year old, and the D90 is over two years old. 

Canon high quality lenses are generally a little cheaper than Nikon ones. 

The t2i has the same sensor and metering as the 7D which means that you can technically produce the same high quality images with either camera. 

the t2i and 7D's sensor performs circles around the D90 in low light. 

All three cameras have live view and video, the Canons have allow fully manual control over video exposure as well as many different frame rates and resolution settings. The Nikon's video is automatic exposure, no resolution or frame rate options and only half the resolution of the Canons (Nikon = 720p, Canon = 720p and 1080p)

The Nikon has more focus points than the t2i, but the same as the 7D. 

The D90's focus points are more spread out than both of the Canons but only has one cross-type focus point. The 7D has 19 cross-type points. 

The D90 is an awesome camera. I used the hell out of it until I bought my 7D. 
The 7D is a much better camera than the D90, but costs twice as much. 
The t2i shares the 7D's sensor, but is in a more simplified body and costs half as much as the 7D. 

I think the D90 is built a little more solidly than the t2i. 

I own a 7D and will likely be buying a t2i to use as a backup body in the next couple months. 

The D90 is great and was, what I thought to be, the best camera by far at it's price level, but I think the t2i is a real knock out at $800. The D90 is likely to be replaced in the Nikon lineup before the end of the year, so you may experience a little buyer's remorse if you drop the coin on one now, only for it to be upgraded in October or something.


----------



## KmH (Jul 28, 2010)

The Canon 7D competes with Nikon's D300s, not the D90. The D300s shares the DX portion of Nikon's top-of-the-line pro camera's auto focus module, including 3D-tracking, and has 51 focus points, 15 of them being cross-type points.

The 7D will likely be replaced within the next 24 months or so. To prevent buyers remorse, perhaps you should wait for the 8D.

The T2i doesn't share all the same image sensor parts the 7D has, which is part of the reason the 7D costs so much more.

There is as yet no clear indication, beyond some rumors and conjecture, that Nikon will be replacing the D90 anytime soon.

No one will know for sure until Nikon makes an official announcement.


----------



## endofnight (Jul 28, 2010)

Thanks for all the info guys! I am getting closer and closer to my final decision. I have decided against the D90. That leaves me with:

Canon t2i vs. 7d

Just a couple more questions. Can both cameras swap lenses? 

If I buy the Canon t2i which lens would be the best for me to buy? I obviously cannot afford a bunch of lenses, so which lens do you feel is a "must have."

If I buy the 7d which lens would be the best for me to buy?

Thanks again!


----------

