# All of you are geniuses...



## kkw93msu2010

...and I need some help.

Let me first start off by saying I'm as beginner as beginner gets. Other than my phone, I've never owned a camera . Which brings me here.

My husband and I are stationed overseas and plan to do some traveling in a few months and I'd love a great camera to take photos with. (And have for years and years to eventually take family photos, etc with) The information available is daunting, and I'm left more confused than when I started looking.

I've narrowed it down to a mirrorless, as it's much more compact than a dslr (easy for extensive traveling), but I haven't made it much further. A friend recommended the LUMIX GX7, however, another friend said to not get anything under 20MP with current technology and price.

I've watched about 20 YouTube videos and spent hours reading review sites only to realize there are tons of great cameras, depending on your preference. I am currently restricted to a 5 mile radius with zero camera stores, so what I order will be what I use.

I literally know nothing and could really use all the help I can get. I'd like a quick point and shoot under $1000 that will last year's and years with the options of more lenses, should I figure out what the hell in doing.

Thanks in advance, and Happy New Year!!!
Kim


----------



## jaomul

Firstly welcome to tpf. I'm no jenius, I have owned a few cameras.The under 20mp advice is not great. The Linux gx7 is a nice camera. At the moment you can buy an olympus EM5 for small money because there is a mark2 version out. This is a very high spec camera, weather sealed, uses olympus and panasonic m43 lenses which are plentiful and many of very high quality


----------



## cherylynne1

Well, first of all, unless you do intense cropping or plan to regularly print larger than 12x16, you'll be fine with 12 or 16 mp. Don't stress about that if you really love the Lumix. 

From what you've said, I'm not sure you really need a camera with interchangeable lenses...it seems like you want one in case "someday" you decide you need it. The thing is, it's always best to buy what matches your current needs, rather than potential future needs. If your plan is to purchase a camera and not upgrade from the kit lens for three or four years, it might be best to get a compact camera for now and wait to get a mirrorless until you're ready to buy lenses, since there will undoubtedly be newer and better versions by then. 

The best travel camera in my opinion is the Sony RX-100 mk III or mk IV. It's a point and shoot, but it has a large sensor with a fantastic lens (it's a Carl Zeiss!) attached. It is a huge step up from a camera phone. It's incredibly tiny and can easily fit in your pocket. 

If you have your heart set on interchangeable, I have the Sony a6000 and I love it. With your budget, you can probably afford the camera, kit lens, and possibly even a prime like the 35mm 1.8, which is my favorite...it almost never leaves the camera. It has a larger sensor and will do a little better than the LUMIX g7 in low light situations. 

DPReview is considered one of the best digital camera reviewers, so here's their take on the cameras in this price range: 

2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-800

And if you decide you won't be changing lenses often, here is their list of best travel compacts:

DPReview Recommends: Best compact cameras for travel 2015

If you have more specific needs, let us know! There's no perfect camera, just the best camera for each person's needs. So if there's something you really need your camera to do, let us know.


----------



## kkw93msu2010

cherylynne1 said:


> Well, first of all, unless you do intense cropping or plan to regularly print larger than 12x16, you'll be fine with 12 or 16 mp. Don't stress about that if you really love the Lumix. From what you've said, I'm not sure you really need a camera with interchangeable lenses...it seems like you want one in case "someday" you decide you need it. The thing is, it's always best to buy what matches your current needs, rather than potential future needs. If your plan is to purchase a camera and not upgrade from the kit lens for three or four years, it might be best to get a compact camera for now and wait to get a mirrorless until you're ready to buy lenses, since there will undoubtedly be newer and better versions by then. The best travel camera in my opinion is the Sony RX-100 mk III or mk IV. It's a point and shoot, but it has a large sensor with a fantastic lens (it's a Carl Zeiss!) attached. It is a huge step up from a camera phone. It's incredibly tiny and can easily fit in your pocket. If you have your heart set on interchangeable, I have the Sony a6000 and I love it. With your budget, you can probably afford the camera, kit lens, and possibly even a prime like the 35mm 1.8, which is my favorite...it almost never leaves the camera. It has a larger sensor and will do a little better than the LUMIX g7 in low light situations. DPReview is considered one of the best digital camera reviewers, so here's their take on the cameras in this price range: 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-800 And if you decide you won't be changing lenses often, here is their list of best travel compacts: DPReview Recommends: Best compact cameras for travel 2015 If you have more specific needs, let us know! There's no perfect camera, just the best camera for each person's needs. So if there's something you really need your camera to do, let us know.





cherylynne1 said:


> Well, first of all, unless you do intense cropping or plan to regularly print larger than 12x16, you'll be fine with 12 or 16 mp. Don't stress about that if you really love the Lumix. From what you've said, I'm not sure you really need a camera with interchangeable lenses...it seems like you want one in case "someday" you decide you need it. The thing is, it's always best to buy what matches your current needs, rather than potential future needs. If your plan is to purchase a camera and not upgrade from the kit lens for three or four years, it might be best to get a compact camera for now and wait to get a mirrorless until you're ready to buy lenses, since there will undoubtedly be newer and better versions by then. The best travel camera in my opinion is the Sony RX-100 mk III or mk IV. It's a point and shoot, but it has a large sensor with a fantastic lens (it's a Carl Zeiss!) attached. It is a huge step up from a camera phone. It's incredibly tiny and can easily fit in your pocket. If you have your heart set on interchangeable, I have the Sony a6000 and I love it. With your budget, you can probably afford the camera, kit lens, and possibly even a prime like the 35mm 1.8, which is my favorite...it almost never leaves the camera. It has a larger sensor and will do a little better than the LUMIX g7 in low light situations. DPReview is considered one of the best digital camera reviewers, so here's their take on the cameras in this price range: 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-800 And if you decide you won't be changing lenses often, here is their list of best travel compacts: DPReview Recommends: Best compact cameras for travel 2015 If you have more specific needs, let us know! There's no perfect camera, just the best camera for each person's needs. So if there's something you really need your camera to do, let us know.


----------



## kkw93msu2010

Thank you!

I am looking to have the ability to print large pictures. I would be happy with the ability to print a fantastic picture of 36" X 36". However, in an ideal world, I would like to print larger. Do you think a camera with a fixed lens would be good for that? The size of print and desired image quality is the main reason of looking into mirrorless cameras.


----------



## jaomul

Above recommended the sony A6000. I recommended that camera to a guy on the form here a few months ago and he's very happy with this. The reason I said the em5 was primarily because yo want it for travel (its small and weather sealed)

Printing big- will you actually print 36 x 36 inch prints?

In theory you need 300 pixels per inch for a great print, but larger prints can be less due viewing distance. 10 years ago billboards were done with 10mp or less. 

In reality with software and proper technique, I don;t think a 16mp camera will hold you back. I recently seen a 6mp photo printed a metre wide. Up very close of course flaws were detectable, but as a hanging large print it was great


----------



## kkw93msu2010

jaomul said:


> Above recommended the sony A6000. I recommended that camera to a guy on the form here a few months ago and he's very happy with this. The reason I said the em5 was primarily because yo want it for travel (its small and weather sealed)
> 
> Printing big- will you actually print 36 x 36 inch prints?
> 
> In theory you need 300 pixels per inch for a great print, but larger prints can be less due viewing distance. 10 years ago billboards were done with 10mp or less.
> 
> In reality with software and proper technique, I don;t think a 16mp camera will hold you back. I recently seen a 6mp photo printed a metre wide. Up very close of course flaws were detectable, but as a hanging large print it was great





Yes! I know that's a large print, but I paint and my canvases are usually atleast 36". I really enjoy large pieces of art and being able to hang something that large of the Eiffle Tower or the Colesseum just seems beautiful! Thank you for all the help! I have looked at the A6000 extensively and, this may be dumb, but there is no EVF? If I'm correct, you can put one on the camera, but that's adding to the bulk. I may be critiquing every part of each camera, but I will never get to hold it, until I have bought it.


----------



## jaomul

A6000 has an evf

Sony a6000 Review


----------



## cherylynne1

The there are two things that affect the ability to print large: sharpness of the photo and megapixels. 

If you take a blurry picture, it doesn't matter how many megapixels you have, the picture will look bad. Taking sharp pictures is the result of good technique, understanding exposure, and using light to your advantage as well as the quality of your lens. As far as megapixels, yes, for 36 x 36 at least 20mp is recommended. However, a sharp 16 mp picture will look better than a blurry 24 mp picture. 

Also, when you print something that big it's pretty rare that you will have your nose an inch away to look at it, in which case the slight pixelation from having not quite enough megapixels will be irrevelant. 

As far as the fixed lens in the RX-100 IV goes: in this case, yes, the lens will be fine for that. The lens on that camera is very high quality, probably more high quality than you could afford to purchase with a mirrorless kit in your current budget. It can take beautiful photographs in the most common focal lengths and open up to very wide apertures. Yes, it has only one lens, but it's a very very good lens, much better than any kit lens. Now, if you know that you will need either wider or longer lenses in the near future, then it's not right for you. But if you're mostly doing pictures of buildings, sunsets, landscapes, and people, it would be a good choice. And it does have 20 mp. Watch some of the promotional videos or video reviews of it. Pros tend to purchase it as a camera to work as a companion to their large kit, so they can have high quality photos when they're unable to lug around their DSLRs.


----------



## cherylynne1

I think you're thinking of the Sony 5100, which has no EVF. The Sony a6000 has one. That's the camera I own, so I know it definitely has one.


----------



## kkw93msu2010

cherylynne1 said:


> I think you're thinking of the Sony 5100, which has no EVF. The Sony a6000 has one. That's the camera I own, so I know it definitely has one.


Thank you! I've looked at wayyyyyyy too many cameras. Lol


----------



## cherylynne1

It's definitely overwhelming, especially when you can't walk into a store and touch them. Definitely better to overthink every detail than to just grab the first thing you see.


----------



## kkw93msu2010

cherylynne1 said:


> The there are two things that affect the ability to print large: sharpness of the photo and megapixels.
> 
> If you take a blurry picture, it doesn't matter how many megapixels you have, the picture will look bad. Taking sharp pictures is the result of good technique, understanding exposure, and using light to your advantage as well as the quality of your lens. As far as megapixels, yes, for 36 x 36 at least 20mp is recommended. However, a sharp 16 mp picture will look better than a blurry 24 mp picture.
> 
> Also, when you print something that big it's pretty rare that you will have your nose an inch away to look at it, in which case the slight pixelation from having not quite enough megapixels will be irrevelant.
> 
> As far as the fixed lens in the RX-100 IV goes: in this case, yes, the lens will be fine for that. The lens on that camera is very high quality, probably more high quality than you could afford to purchase with a mirrorless kit in your current budget. It can take beautiful photographs in the most common focal lengths and open up to very wide apertures. Yes, it has only one lens, but it's a very very good lens, much better than any kit lens. Now, if you know that you will need either wider or longer lenses in the near future, then it's not right for you. But if you're mostly doing pictures of buildings, sunsets, landscapes, and people, it would be a good choice. And it does have 20 mp. Watch some of the promotional videos or video reviews of it. Pros tend to purchase it as a camera to work as a companion to their large kit, so they can have high quality photos when they're unable to lug around their DSLRs.


Wow! This sounds fantastic! I love the idea of the fixed lens, less to lug around and less for me to break. I would MUCH rather buy a fixed lens that is good, than an interchangeable lens that is mediocre. I'm definitely looking for that fine line between quality and all purpose.


----------



## f/otographer

First of all, welcome aboard and good luck in your beginning journey with photography. It can become a a rewarding and lifelong passion if you stick with it.

The thing to remember at this stage since you are just starting out is that any worrying over this camera or that one is really not necessary. Your current skill level, or lack of it, will level the playing field for any cameras you are considering. Each of the models that myself or others here recommend in this thread will be possess capabilities far beyond your current ability to exploit, and will still have plenty of room to grow into in the years to come. In other word you wont be out shooting any of these cameras any time soon. Heck, I have been shooting for almost ten years and my Sony a7 is still a better camera then I am as a photographer.

With that in mind it will come down to ergonomics, cost and lens selections. Here is a basic rundown of your major options with some generic info. I will also include used options as well as new since buying a pre owned camera makes a lot of sense for a new shooter. It can save you money on a body which leaves you more cash for lenses (its all the about the lenses, bodies come and go) and can reduce your investment if you choose not to stick with photography. KEH.com is a great place to buy used with a no questions asked money back return policy in the first 14 or 30 days (cant remember exactly.)

*FUJI*- Great cameras with a absolutely wonderful lens selection, especially affordable prime lenses. All their cameras are APSC sized sensors, which means they are the biggest you can get in a mirrorless short of going Full Frame. Some models to look at here are the new *XT-10*, a fairly small and retro SLR styled body with many of the abilities of the top of the line XT-1 with only a few corners cut here and there. You can probably squeeze out one of these with a single lens for around a grand, maybe a tad more. For used options there are the XE-1, XE-2 or even the X-Pro 1, which still might be found new for very little money since the X-Pro 2 is right around the corner. These three options are styled like classic rangefinders instead of like a traditional SLR. My only issue with the XE's and X-Pro is that they don't have tilting back screens. But if this isn't an problem they are excellent cameras and can be found used relatively cheaply. Pop on the new Fujinon 35/2 prime lens on any of these bodies and you have a wonderfully compact, powerful imaging tool. Oh, some of the Fuji's come with great weather sealing and some of their lenses do as well.

*SONY*- As it has already been said the *a6000 *is one of the best deals going right now in APSC sized cameras. It is a stupidly capable camera for very little money. One issue with Sony (although this is changing) is their lens lineup isn't as fleshed out or as well thought out as some of the others. But don't let this stop you as they should have focal lengths to cover most of what you would ever shoot. And as with any mirrorless camera you can adapt old film lenses to use on this for some wonderful results. Please take a look at the following flickr folder of mine. It is from the older Sony NEX 7 of which the a6000 is the successor. All of these photos were taken with adapted film lenses. This type of photography is not for everyone but it is an option if you are so inclined. But it will give you an idea of what is capable with the a6000.

NEX-7

The ergonomics of the Sonys are quite different from the Fuji. They have a more modern design with a larger grip and have very little 'retro' styling about them. The Fuji's on the other hand look and handle exactly like old film SLR's and rangefinders. Myself, I prefer the older style especially since it usually places all the buttons and dials on the body that one normally controls the basic camera functions with, like shutter, aperture and ISO. One thing to note is that most Fuji lenses have an actual aperture ring on the lens, which is hard to find in this day and age and a welcomed feature. On the Sony you control the aperture on the body.

*MICRO FOUR THIRDS*- These are cameras put out by Panasonic and Olympus and they share a sensor size and mount so that lenses are interchangeable between brands. Keep in mind that the sensor is a bit smaller then the APSC sized cameras listed above and this can have some effect on the image size and noise. Of course, having said that, my local camera store has photos in their shop several feet in length that were shot on M4/3 and they printed them this large just to show how big of a print can be gotten from such a small sensor. I don't personally know a whole lot about individual models of this type, but I can tell you they have an absolutely GREAT lens lineup and most of the bodies have great weather sealing built in. They are the camera line that stays truest to the mantra that a mirrorless camera should be small and portable. The bodies from Panasonic and Olympus come in both modern and traditional (read retro) styles so there are many options to choose from. Would I personally shoot with one of these cameras? No, but that is due to my adaptation of film lenses and my love of bokeh. The smaller a sensor is the more it impacts the 'apparent' focal length of adapted lenses (field of view) and it also effects the amount of depth of field (bokeh) at a given aperture. For instance, my Canon FL 55/1.2 gives me a truly narrow DOF on my Sony a7 because it is a Full Frame body and the lens stays a 55mm. On a M4/3 body this same lens would have the field of view of a 110mm lens due to the crop factor and also have the equivelnt aperture of between f/2 to f/2.8, so I wouldn't get that super creamy background I love so much. This isn't going to be a huge thing for you since you are starting out, but just something to consider since if you end up sticking with photography then the decisions you make now can effect you options down the road depending on what you end up shooting.

Well that's it in a nutshell. There is a lot of information to consider when getting into photography but just remember what I said earlier. Any of these cameras and lenses are capable of world class images and what you get out of them will be far more dependent on your skill as a photographer as opposed to individual features of any given camera. A competent photographer should be able to pick up any camera and make compelling and beautiful imagery. But it takes years of shooting and a good understanding of the basics to get there. Photography is like anything else and it requires practice, practice, practice to find your 'eye' and to 'get good'. Hardly anybody picks up a guitar and is immediately able to join a band and start playing beautiful music. It takes dedication and a love of the art to stick with it. Photography is no different.

Hope this helps.


----------



## cherylynne1

Just to be clear, mirrorless cameras are better cameras, but only when combined with good lenses and the knowledge of how to use them. I just think they might be too much for someone who's never had a camera and frankly, probably isn't even sure if photography will be a lifelong pursuit. 

The RX-100 would make a really nice natural bridge from camera phone to higher photography. It's a great gateway drug, you could say. You can learn manual modes and shoot in Raw if you decide to get into heavy editing. Actually, since you mentioned you're a painter, digital imaging might be really enjoyable to you. It's sort of where photography and illustration meet. 

It will probably take a few years to really outgrow it, and at that point, you'll know exactly what you want in an interchangeable lens camera. I'd advise you to start saving now, because once you start down the camera/lenses/flashes/accessories road, it's a money pit that never seems to end....


----------



## f/otographer

Cherylynne, I think the RX-100 is a great choice for someone who is looking to get into photography and wants a high quality compact. And you are correct, it is an excellent bridge from cell phone to more 'real' cameras. My only issue with it the lack of any type of View Finder. Composition will have to be done cell phone like with the camera held at arms length. This removes a critical component of more serious photography, as learning to hold the camera to your eye for better composition and stability is so very important. Maybe there is an EVF available for it? But this would just add to the cost so maybe looking for something with an EVF already built in might be better? Maybe something like the Fujifilm X20 or X30?


----------



## cherylynne1

The RX100 IV has a pop-up EVF...the first two did not, I believe, but III and IV do.


----------



## kkw93msu2010

I am so thankful for all of your responses! I do not plan to become a professional, but I do plan to devote a couple of months to learning the camera before I actually travel with it. I'm really liking the things with A6000, not to mention I can get the 15-50 and 55-210 for $696 on amazon. the bulk of the camera with the 15-50 is minimal, which is WONDERFUL! I can bring the 55-210 to use sparingly, for details on buildings, etc. Thankfully - I have a friend here that is versed in his DSLR and editing, and has more than offered to help tech me on either aspect.

I love the RS100 IV and see how it would be great for me, however, I am very open to learning all the ends and outs of a camera - even if it takes years. While it's in my budget, I can save a couple hundred and get the WHOLE SHEBANG! Hopefully this won't be a mistake, but at this point - even not so great pictures with an A6000 should be better than my phone, which is what I was going to bring.

Do you recommend the lens that come in the bundle? Amazon.com : Sony Alpha a6000 Mirrorless Digital Camera with 16-50mm Power Zoom Lens : Camera & Photo

Or should I buy the base and a couple extra lenses separate? I don't know much about pancake lenses, but I know they are significantly thinner.

Thank y'all all again! I am overwhelmingly thankful for the time y'all have put into each of your response and I have read them multiple times and looked at all the lengths. Oh and my husband says "thanks" too. He's just glad I'm not all over the place anymore. hahahha


----------



## cherylynne1

I'm glad you're settling down on some choices! 

I have both of those lenses (the 16-50 kit lens and 55-210) for my a6000, and both are fine for a beginner. Starting out, you won't be particularly concerned with sharpness from corner to corner or pixel peeping, you'll just be thrilled at the massive improvement from your smartphone! Kit lenses are great for learning your personal style of photography. 

I also have two prime lenses, the 35mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.8.  Here's the thing about prime lenses: they don't zoom in or out. When you look through the viewfinder, what you see is what you get, and if you want to zoom, you have to physically get closer or further away. So you might wonder, why would you need non-zooming lenses when you already have those focal lengths in your kit lens? 

Here's how it helped me to understand it: Kit lenses, and many zoom lenses in general, are kind of a jack of all trades. They have a bunch of focal lengths to choose from, and they're okay at all of them. A prime lens, on the other hand, chooses one focal length and becomes a master of it. A prime lens won't only be significantly sharper, it can also open up to a wider aperture to let in more light. 

I use the 35mm 1.8 almost all the time. The 50mm 1.8 is good for portraits. Once you use your kit lens for awhile, check and see which focal lengths you tend to use the most (your pictures will all have EXIF data, which gives you information about all your settings.) Whichever focal length you tend to prefer, I would get a prime in that focal length. 

I also have two Sony flashes that I couldn't live without, however, I'm mostly taking photos of people indoors where I have white walls to bounce light off of, and I believe that you are probably going to take more pictures outdoors where a flash wouldn't be useful. 

I'm glad you have a friend to walk you through the ins and outs! I'm doing the same thing with my best friend, she just got a Canon Rebel for Christmas.  We're always here to help too, especially if you have any questions specific to Sony.  

Enjoy your new camera!


----------



## kkw93msu2010

Thank you! I feel those lenses are best for me too - one day I may be good enough to zero in on a focal length - but today and the foreseeable future needs a jack of all trades lens.

Which flashes are you using and do you recommend? I do plan to take pictures indoors, while I'm not on vacation. And my house has exclusively, white walls, lol. Lots of potential here!!! hahah


----------



## kkw93msu2010

f/otographer said:


> First of all, welcome aboard and good luck in your beginning journey with photography. It can become a a rewarding and lifelong passion if you stick with it.
> 
> The thing to remember at this stage since you are just starting out is that any worrying over this camera or that one is really not necessary. Your current skill level, or lack of it, will level the playing field for any cameras you are considering. Each of the models that myself or others here recommend in this thread will be possess capabilities far beyond your current ability to exploit, and will still have plenty of room to grow into in the years to come. In other word you wont be out shooting any of these cameras any time soon. Heck, I have been shooting for almost ten years and my Sony a7 is still a better camera then I am as a photographer.
> 
> With that in mind it will come down to ergonomics, cost and lens selections. Here is a basic rundown of your major options with some generic info. I will also include used options as well as new since buying a pre owned camera makes a lot of sense for a new shooter. It can save you money on a body which leaves you more cash for lenses (its all the about the lenses, bodies come and go) and can reduce your investment if you choose not to stick with photography. KEH.com is a great place to buy used with a no questions asked money back return policy in the first 14 or 30 days (cant remember exactly.)
> 
> *FUJI*- Great cameras with a absolutely wonderful lens selection, especially affordable prime lenses. All their cameras are APSC sized sensors, which means they are the biggest you can get in a mirrorless short of going Full Frame. Some models to look at here are the new *XT-10*, a fairly small and retro SLR styled body with many of the abilities of the top of the line XT-1 with only a few corners cut here and there. You can probably squeeze out one of these with a single lens for around a grand, maybe a tad more. For used options there are the XE-1, XE-2 or even the X-Pro 1, which still might be found new for very little money since the X-Pro 2 is right around the corner. These three options are styled like classic rangefinders instead of like a traditional SLR. My only issue with the XE's and X-Pro is that they don't have tilting back screens. But if this isn't an problem they are excellent cameras and can be found used relatively cheaply. Pop on the new Fujinon 35/2 prime lens on any of these bodies and you have a wonderfully compact, powerful imaging tool. Oh, some of the Fuji's come with great weather sealing and some of their lenses do as well.
> 
> *SONY*- As it has already been said the *a6000 *is one of the best deals going right now in APSC sized cameras. It is a stupidly capable camera for very little money. One issue with Sony (although this is changing) is their lens lineup isn't as fleshed out or as well thought out as some of the others. But don't let this stop you as they should have focal lengths to cover most of what you would ever shoot. And as with any mirrorless camera you can adapt old film lenses to use on this for some wonderful results. Please take a look at the following flickr folder of mine. It is from the older Sony NEX 7 of which the a6000 is the successor. All of these photos were taken with adapted film lenses. This type of photography is not for everyone but it is an option if you are so inclined. But it will give you an idea of what is capable with the a6000.
> 
> NEX-7
> 
> The ergonomics of the Sonys are quite different from the Fuji. They have a more modern design with a larger grip and have very little 'retro' styling about them. The Fuji's on the other hand look and handle exactly like old film SLR's and rangefinders. Myself, I prefer the older style especially since it usually places all the buttons and dials on the body that one normally controls the basic camera functions with, like shutter, aperture and ISO. One thing to note is that most Fuji lenses have an actual aperture ring on the lens, which is hard to find in this day and age and a welcomed feature. On the Sony you control the aperture on the body.
> 
> *MICRO FOUR THIRDS*- These are cameras put out by Panasonic and Olympus and they share a sensor size and mount so that lenses are interchangeable between brands. Keep in mind that the sensor is a bit smaller then the APSC sized cameras listed above and this can have some effect on the image size and noise. Of course, having said that, my local camera store has photos in their shop several feet in length that were shot on M4/3 and they printed them this large just to show how big of a print can be gotten from such a small sensor. I don't personally know a whole lot about individual models of this type, but I can tell you they have an absolutely GREAT lens lineup and most of the bodies have great weather sealing built in. They are the camera line that stays truest to the mantra that a mirrorless camera should be small and portable. The bodies from Panasonic and Olympus come in both modern and traditional (read retro) styles so there are many options to choose from. Would I personally shoot with one of these cameras? No, but that is due to my adaptation of film lenses and my love of bokeh. The smaller a sensor is the more it impacts the 'apparent' focal length of adapted lenses (field of view) and it also effects the amount of depth of field (bokeh) at a given aperture. For instance, my Canon FL 55/1.2 gives me a truly narrow DOF on my Sony a7 because it is a Full Frame body and the lens stays a 55mm. On a M4/3 body this same lens would have the field of view of a 110mm lens due to the crop factor and also have the equivelnt aperture of between f/2 to f/2.8, so I wouldn't get that super creamy background I love so much. This isn't going to be a huge thing for you since you are starting out, but just something to consider since if you end up sticking with photography then the decisions you make now can effect you options down the road depending on what you end up shooting.
> 
> Well that's it in a nutshell. There is a lot of information to consider when getting into photography but just remember what I said earlier. Any of these cameras and lenses are capable of world class images and what you get out of them will be far more dependent on your skill as a photographer as opposed to individual features of any given camera. A competent photographer should be able to pick up any camera and make compelling and beautiful imagery. But it takes years of shooting and a good understanding of the basics to get there. Photography is like anything else and it requires practice, practice, practice to find your 'eye' and to 'get good'. Hardly anybody picks up a guitar and is immediately able to join a band and start playing beautiful music. It takes dedication and a love of the art to stick with it. Photography is no different.
> 
> Hope this helps.


Your pictures are absolutely beautiful!!!


----------



## cherylynne1

I have the HVL-f20m and the HVL-F32m. The f32m has SO many more functions and is still small enough that it's an excellent fit for this camera. But it is pretty expensive, about $300. 

Something unique about the Sony cameras is that the pop-up flash that comes on the camera can actually be bent backwards to bounce off the ceiling. You have to hold it with one finger while you press the shutter, which is a little awkward, but it's good for getting a feel for bouncing light to see if it's something you would do often. So if you can, I would wait to get your camera and see how often you use this feature. If you use it all the time and you find yourself constantly wishing you had a more powerful flash, then you can add on the flash. 

I know there is also a third party flash from Nissin that many people recommend, but I haven't used it and know very little about it. But it will be cheaper and have the same functions.


----------



## kkw93msu2010

Great advice! I will definitely wait and see if the popup flash is sufficient for my skill level. There will always be products to add once I figure out what I'm doing with it.


----------



## otherprof

cherylynne1 said:


> Well, first of all, unless you do intense cropping or plan to regularly print larger than 12x16, you'll be fine with 12 or 16 mp. Don't stress about that if you really love the Lumix.
> 
> From what you've said, I'm not sure you really need a camera with interchangeable lenses...it seems like you want one in case "someday" you decide you need it. The thing is, it's always best to buy what matches your current needs, rather than potential future needs. If your plan is to purchase a camera and not upgrade from the kit lens for three or four years, it might be best to get a compact camera for now and wait to get a mirrorless until you're ready to buy lenses, since there will undoubtedly be newer and better versions by then.
> 
> The best travel camera in my opinion is the Sony RX-100 mk III or mk IV. It's a point and shoot, but it has a large sensor with a fantastic lens (it's a Carl Zeiss!) attached. It is a huge step up from a camera phone. It's incredibly tiny and can easily fit in your pocket.
> 
> If you have your heart set on interchangeable, I have the Sony a6000 and I love it. With your budget, you can probably afford the camera, kit lens, and possibly even a prime like the 35mm 1.8, which is my favorite...it almost never leaves the camera. It has a larger sensor and will do a little better than the LUMIX g7 in low light situations.
> 
> DPReview is considered one of the best digital camera reviewers, so here's their take on the cameras in this price range:
> 
> 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-800
> 
> And if you decide you won't be changing lenses often, here is their list of best travel compacts:
> 
> DPReview Recommends: Best compact cameras for travel 2015
> 
> If you have more specific needs, let us know! There's no perfect camera, just the best camera for each person's needs. So if there's something you really need your camera to do, let us know.


I recently bought a Sony a6000 with the kit lens and really like it. The viewfinder is very good, the sensor is big (aps-c) and the images are excellent. I'm shooting j-pegs right out of the camera, and the camera seems optimized for them with the kit lens. It cost me under $600 in a kit from Adorama. You can add the 35 1.8 and still come in under $1000 here. The only problem is the documentation is almost non-existent. But there are a number of detailed videos on line - I really liked the Gary Fong video - to take the place of a decent manual.


----------

