Choosing a Camera

[RustBeltRaw]

Fortunately, there's a vast difference in quality when starting with a $500 budget versus a $1,000 budget. I'm going to limit my recommendations to Canon, since that's the platform I'm most familiar with. Prices in US dollars.

Adobe Creative Cloud subscription: $20/month, or $240/year. This gets you Photoshop, the industry's most popular editing software, and Lightroom, a processing and cataloging application. Cost is $240 a year, charged monthly.

Used Canon 50D: Around $380 through B&H photo. Probably less through KEH Photo or your local camera store. This is a tough, capable camera which quite a few people are still using in fairly demanding applications. 15 megapixels gives you enough room to crop (cut off the image's edges to focus the viewer on different areas) if you're trying macro work without a dedicated lens. The 10 megapixel 40D is about $100 less, but 10 megapixels is a little on the low side these days. Still workable if you want to save some money.

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II LD: $500 new. With a wide f2.8 aperture, this lens will probably be with you a while. One of the biggest problems with basic kit lenses is that they have tight apertures, which can limit you to shooting well-lit subjects with fairly deep depth of field (not always desirable). This one's basically a premium kit lens, and it avoids that problem.

Total out of pocket for the first year: $1,120 ($880 on gear, $240 month-to-month on Photoshop).

Personally, I strongly advocate getting one camera and one lens to start, learn that combination until you know it inside-out and backwards, and build your post-processing (Photoshop/Lightroom) skills at the same time. Once your camera-handling abilities reach a certain level, post-processing skills are required. Nothing fancy like compositing or HDR is necessary, but mastering color correction, sharpening, dodging, and burning (all of which we can explain later ) can take your work to a remarkably professional level. Just don't expect this to happen overnight, or even inside a year. Learning this stuff takes practice, persistence, and sheer pig-headedness.

[rpcrowe]

Re: Colin's comment: "It was a 20D that more or less got me started. Still have fond memories of the old girl!"

I never shot with the 20D but went from the 10D to the 30D. As is the 20D, the 30D is still quite capable. In fact, I won a recent mini competition with an image I shot with this old work horse. Mini Competition #1775

I still frequently use the 30D for my pictures of rescue Maltese and their adoptive families. I have the 30D set up with a Canon 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Lens and a tiny Canon 270EX flash. I previously used this rig with a 50mm f/1.8 lens. This combination is very small but is capable of quite nice imagery:

This image was done with the 30D and 50mm f/1.8 lens.



Although, not terribly versatile because they are fixed focal length prime lenses, both the 40mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.8 can produce very good to excellent quality images at a very low price. If I were looking for a low priced rig, I would seriously consider a 20D or 30D with an 18-55mm Image Stabilized kit lens. The IS version is a better all around lens than the non-IS model. Throw in a 50mm f/1.8 Mk II lens and you will have the capability of shooting in low light...

However, as Cathy states, a "bridge camera"might be a better choice for an economical rig because you don't need to purchase as many extras - such as lenses. My son-in-law shoots with a Canon SX50 and is quite happy (his imagery is really pretty nice). I have a friend in a local camera group whose backup camera is the Canon SX40 which he has modified with an aftermarket firmware to enable RAW capture. Before I started using the 30D + single fixed lens as my camera for shooting the adoptive families of my rescue dogs, I was seriously considering an SX40 for that use. I was quite impressed with the quality of my friend's SX40 images. He gets some nice imagery with this small, light and very inexpensive camera. Most of the recent USA eBay auctions for the Canon SX40 have gone for between $250 and $275 U.S. Dollars and some have sold for significantly less.

No image digital straight out of the camera is optimum. All digital imagery can benefit from post processing. The Canon cameras will usually come with a fairly decent post processing program on a CD (as will most other cameras) and here are several free editing programs available. GIMP is one of these. I repeat: To get very good to excellent imagery from any digital camera, that image should be post processed including the addition of some sharpening.

Finally: It is amazing what quality you can achieve with an low priced camera and a Canon IS kit lens, especially if you shoot using a tripod.

[MrB]

Eugen, in my opinion the correct advice here is to get yourself a good used DSLR with a standard zoom lens, usually 18mm to 55mm*. Learn how to use every aspect of it, by reading the manual, experimenting with the settings, and taking lots of practice shots.

One more point - when you are starting out, you do NOT need to spend a fortune on a special macro lens to shoot close-up, as has already been mentioned there are several ways of experimenting in this field. E.g.1. you can add extra close-up lenses (they screw into the filter thread of your kit lens); they work without losing light, but the quality might not be quite so good if you want to view at large size on screen or in big prints. E.g.2. is to get a set of cheap manual extension tubes (they fit between your kit lens and camera body) - you will have to set the camera and focus manually, and you will lose some of the light (but a decent LED torch can solve that problem), but the quality can be as good as your kit lens. Neither of these two methods need cost more than about £20 (30 USD).

(* When buying used equipment, I prefer to use a dealer who will give a warranty.)

Philip

[jcuknz]

Hi JC
To put my comment into context so that it is not confused the purpose of it was to make Eugen aware that for macro work with a DSLR a separate lens would be required that is something that must be considered, and part of that consideration would naturally include budget, prioritys and time frames

The point I want to make is that the macro lens is an expensive modern convienience tool and photographers have been taking big close-ups for decades without them. While the suggested MFT with 14-42 lens would be limited in this field it would be capable of taking body shots if not bug-eye shots and with MFT cropping is possible just as with the antique DSLR. The reason that the G3 is 'so cheap' is becuase a characteristic of the digital photographer seems to be jumping for the latest model for the minimal improvements it offers.

Colin while you took what you consider great pictures and fondly remember your first camera if it is possible, and it appears it is as I searched, to buy a relatively modern camera of superior suitability he should go for that. Frankly I gave away a more modern version of the Canon DSLR, a D60, becuase it was made redundant by my MFT camera and was just another pair of batteries to remember to keep charged up becuase apart from an innitial enthusiasm for the new 'toy' it simply was not needed or used becuase of the superiority of the bridge camera and now MFT as a 'working tool'. We have different aims with our photography and I recognise you need your FF DSLR to maintain your position but I suggest that I am closer to CC's needs than you and what is suitable for him. If he did have the need and finance to change to the DSLR in the future it would be an easy transition having learnt the photo skills.

It is a shame that the wrangle between the conventional and a freer thinking photographer is causing confusion to CC
I apologise to him for this

[jcuknz]

Further to Philip's #2 ... the cheap extension tube I will repeat the important aspect of these that to use them you need a lens with manual control of the aperture / iris. One of the unfortunate aspects of the modern automatic lens designed to be used with an automatic camera is that they do not normally have this manual control. So you need an 'automatic extension tube' with a modern camera which has the electronic coupling between camera and lens. These are rather more expensive than the simple tube.... must admit that if the gear is old enough [ and my D60 wasn't ] the lens will have aperture control so the tubes are a cheap way to go .... over the years I have acquired three sets and have old lenses to use them with on my modern camera and its adaptor. Also not mentioned is the 'bellows' which is a sort of variable extension tube.

But I would emphasise that while I have accumulated all this gear over the years for my current needs a close-up lens is the quickest and most efficient way of working so they remain 'interesting' items on 'the shelf'.

The 'fly' in that statement is that I have a 140mm [280 AoV]lens instead of the 42mm [84mm AoV] kit lens of the suggested G3 [ even better would be the FZ50 with its 430mm AoV lens ] and the use of a close-up lens is more suited to the longer lens and is of lesser value with the shorter lens.

This is a convoluted subject and one could go on discussing the seemingly endless variations, and people's reasons for making their choices, but enough before CC gets even more confused.

[Stagecoach]

For 500 Bucks you can get an antiquated beat-up DSLR ffrom the Ark

Lets not forget that it was not that many years ago that these very same DSLR cameras were used for producing images that graced the pages of such publications as National Geographic and in the right hands produced the same quality images as todays newer DSLR versions albeit with a lower pixel count.

[MrB]

Further to Philip's #2 ... One of the unfortunate aspects of the modern automatic lens designed to be used with an automatic camera is that they do not normally have this manual control.

Of course, you are right JC - I'd forgotten about that important point, as I use tubes with a 50mm lens from an old film camera, although it is often possible to find those old lenses at very cheap prices, e.g. on eBay.

Philip

[jcuknz]

Very true Grahame but lets us not forget that the digital camera has developed very quickly and even the G3 is 'old' in some peoples eyes though Kathy and my son seem to enjoy working with it and wax lyrical about it ... mine comes from fond memories of last year when I forsoke it for big brother with lots of external knobs. Actually big brother was an older design so I miss one or two neat features of the G3 which put it in the forefront of camera design for features that I delighted in using. Obviously other people will have different requirements of their tool.

In digital terms the 'Ark' is only five years old. 'Beat up' ... cheap ones most likely worn out from professional use unless one is very lucky ... what I found and linked to were being sold by Panasonic as new or perhaps refurbished.

[jcuknz]

One aspect of buying a camera for Romania which I suspect is true .... With Micro Four Thirds you have a camera with a short lens to sensor distance which means for manual operation almost any lens can be made to work with it with adaptors. This I suspect in Europe opens up a huge range of lenses, with Russia not so far away, and older lenses by Zeiss and other quality producers. Kern and Switar 16mm cine camera lenses have been used with good result on MFT. Canon is good in this respect with the EOS mount but nothing like as versatile as MFT.

Since to my suprise I found an MFT camera within CC's budget I wouldn't suggest anything different unless he wanted a long lens for wildlife ... The particular models I had/have contain the essential features of the DSLR without the weight of the big expensive glass that the DSLR requires for its slightly larger sensor ... twice the weight and twice the price at least.

[jcuknz]

Yes Philip ... I got caught when the first accessory I bought for my D60 was a cheap tube set at Au$30 and found the 30-70 lens I had bought with a film Canon didn't have aperture control and I had to use my old Pentax 50mm

[Colin Southern]

However, Colin, those are some wicked pictures. What kind of lens have you used?

Thanks - they were all shot with a Canon EF24-70mm F2.8L USM, but to be honest, the quality of the end result isn't really proportional to the quality of the lens; other factors are far more important (composition, time of day (lighting), post-processing). You certainly don't need a lens like mine to get a result like that. I've got a few more landscapes at http://www.pbase.com/cjsouthern/all_images if you're interested (or all my work at www.pbase.com/cjsouthern) (<-- shameless plugs!!!).

Well, P&S also appears to be much better than I though, but I will be a little stubborn here. While I appreciate that they can be easier and friendlier, I would really like a DSLR. After all, most photographers who started with P&S ended up with DSLR, right? This is my main reason why I'm a little reluctant about P&S.
Even if P&S can have a better ratio price/quality compared with a cheap DSLR, I will stick with DSLR and see where it will get me.

In my opinion, that's an excellent call. Lesser cameras can still take more than adequate photos, but the smaller the sensor, the more ideal conditions need to be to achieve that. When light levels are poor then the SLR wins every time; try using a camera phone to take a photo in bad light to see what I mean. DSLRs also give you more control - more options - AND, you won't need to trade-up until later, instead of sooner, as you hit the limits of the smaller cameras.

Canon 20D Body+card+neck strap+batter/recharger at 125$
Canon 30D Body+18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens 300$ but I think I can get it at 250$
Canon 450D Body at 200$

Bottom line is "the more you spend, the better the camera you'll get - so it really comes down to how much you want to invest. Keep in mind also though that even if you "over-invested" and then found that photography wasn't for you, then (assuming that the camera wasn't a current model) then you'd be able to sell it and get most of your money back -- so minimum risk in that respect.

Adobe Creative Cloud subscription: $20/month, or $240/year. This gets you Photoshop, the industry's most popular editing software, and Lightroom, a processing and cataloging application. Cost is $240 a year, charged monthly.

This is what I use - and I recommend it without hesitation.

Photography today (and yesterday too, although people don't seem to realise this) isn't about "take the shot" then "job done". It's about planning the shot (composition, lighting / time-of-day) - executing the shot (appropriate equipment, correct technique) - and then processing the shot (again, appropriate equipment, correct techniques). All too often folks put too much emphasis on camera and lenses, and little on lighting, tripod, photographer training, post-production software, and post-production training.

Re: Colin's comment: "It was a 20D that more or less got me started. Still have fond memories of the old girl!"

I never shot with the 20D but went from the 10D to the 30D. As is the 20D, the 30D is still quite capable. In fact, I won a recent mini competition with an image I shot with this old work horse.Mini Competition #1775

Both the 20D and 30D were great cameras - I've still got many 22 x 33 inch canvases hanging on my walls that were shot with the 20D - and they're still selling!

[chauncey]

I might suggest that...should you want to take the kinds of image that have been displayed herein, the choice of camera is secondary to the skills exhibited in Post Production.

[Colin Southern]

I might suggest that...should you want to take the kinds of image that have been displayed herein, the choice of camera is secondary to the skills exhibited in Post Production.

Post Production is an important step for sure, but one still needs to develop skills in many other areas. To the best of my knowledge, none of the images presented here are either composites nor have any been over-processed nor "creations of post-processing"

[jcuknz]

Since you seem to have made up your mind CC I wish you every good fortune in your endeavours. I think you are heading down a wrong path but numerous here don't so I will leave it at that .. whatever .. enjoy your new activity

[ContemporaryCaveman]

I'm really grateful for all the the help you folks have given me. I really am. Jcuknz, I haven't actually made my mind yet. To be honest, after reading every reply carefully, I now have more questions than three days ago when I made this topic (which is a good thing).
I've realized (sorry if I'm wrong) that everything is not 'black and white' as I thought. Before, honestly, I thought about DSLR as the good cameras, and P&S as the bad ones. Well, it seems now that I was quite wrong, and P&S are not as bad as I thought.

However, I still have to read a lot, and I don't want to bother anyone, but as I said before, I can barely understand some replies due to my lack of knowledge. I google the terms I don't understand, and so I get a better understanding.
Therefore there's still a quite long way to go until I will be entirely sure of what I want. I will continue to read and hopefully, I will be able to make a competent decision soon.
Hopefully, in a few months I will be able to post some pictures here

Thank you everyone!

[jcuknz]

EDIT .... CC you are not a bother All of us here are enthusiastic photographers and come here to share ideas and answer questions ... it is a reason for being ... you will quickly find out if you are a bother as you will be ignored and you certainly have not been in this thread


Again sorry Grahame BU..BU..B UT ...
Rather than to suggest or promote a certain type or model of camera/lens I was attempting to assist Eugen's understanding of a DSLR due to being a 'newbie' (not my words) in case there was a possibility that it was assumed any lens could be used for macro.

Any lens CAN be used for 'macro' ... it just depends on the lens how you go about it.

Likewise the 'wicked' shots of Colin could all have been taken with a good P&S camera ... if the photographer knows how
I had a Canon s20 P&S as my second digital camera and my wife was raising some Monarch caterpillars. I organised a CU lens for it from a pair of plastic reading glasses and took shots to compare what it could achieve as opposed to my newer Nikon 5700, a bridge camera of the period which is still in working order and used occasionally, as is the s20.

The difference demonstrated here is the 'working tool' complete in itself as opposed the basically 'old' design which to be flexible needs 'extras' Here I used the D60 with a 135mm lens and a reversed 50mm on its front.

I had both lenses and others from film days so I only bought the DSLR body which I wanted solely for its interchangable lens mount to use my extension tubes and bellows from film days. The beauty of the Canon EOS mounting is that it is easy and cheap to get conversion rings for my older M42 mount lens. The point of this photo is to raise the idea that after getting the body you may find older and cheaper lenses around to meet your needs ... the only snag with this is that the idea has been promoted so often that 'good cheap' film lenses have been snapped up already.

The G3 MFT continues this flexibility but with a relatively modern body and build concepts.
The D20/30 are without doubt excellent for taking the wide landscape shots as shown earlier but to achieve what the P&S and bridge did above requires 'extras' which could easilly cost the whole of your budget maybe several times .... that is the drawback rarely mentioned, usually by me , of the DSLR. The DSLR can be a slippery slope to bankrupcy unless one can control the urge to get 'the next lens' which applies to MFT too and I recently fell into my own trap in buying a special lens recently despite knowing the fault
The photos are full frame though I may have cropped the coin back from 3:2 ... so long ago I forget.

[Daisy Mae]

' I will continue to read '

Most importantly..continue to ask questions..that is what it is all about.

[davidedric]

Hello Eugen,

I just wanted to say that your english, which I suppose isn't your first language, is very, very good. Good luck. Dave

[Stagecoach]

Again sorry Grahame BU..BU..B UT ...
Rather than to suggest or promote a certain type or model of camera/lens I was attempting to assist Eugen's understanding of a DSLR due to being a 'newbie' (not my words) in case there was a possibility that it was assumed any lens could be used for macro.

Any lens CAN be used for 'macro' ... it just depends on the lens how you go about it.

JC

I would agree that a lens can have additional items placed behind or in front of it to increase its ability to focus closer or increase its magnification but to suggest that 'any' lens can be used for macro is a bit woolly and perhaps misleading to those that are learning. There is of course then the definition of 'macro' and 'close up' which is another thing altogether.

What we need to be doing is making Eugen aware as he mentioned 'close up' and 'insects' are the options available and more importantly in a way that he will understand what these options can give in way of limitations and possibilities.

Hopefully Eugen has an idea of his expectations with regard to close up work and will now look at the differences produced in this area between the extremes of taping a lens from an old pair of spectacles in front of a P&S to that of a specialist macro lens. Those differences of course being image quality which have a bearing on the acceptable size of picture produced from them.

[Colin Southern]

Likewise the 'wicked' shots of Colin could all have been taken with a good P&S camera ... if the photographer knows how

I think - as they say in the ad - "you're dreaming mate".