Beginners Camera

[Champion_Munch]

Hi all,

I had a look around for a similar topic here but there didn't seem to be anything recent so I'll start a new thread...

Looking to get myself a camera for bushwalking, mostly interested in landscape photos/sunrise-sunsets/rainforest type thing. I've been using a little point and shoot for about a year now and it's been great (I can easily whip it out of my pocket and take photos one handed while I walk without much need to stop) but there's a scratch on the lens so most of my photos have a big smear in the middle of them now. I'm keen to get something with a bit more grunt, possibly an entry level SLR, but not really sure what to go for as I know next to nothing about cameras. Something light and relatively easily transportable (for bushwalking) would be a plus, although I accept that a decent camera isn't likely to fit my pocket anymore.

Spoke to a guy at the camera shop who recommended Canon's EOS 1200D. Anyone had any experience with this camera? Are there better options out there for a similar price range? Any other thoughts? All input is welcome!

Cheers,
Munch

[GPSGuided]

Key question is, are you willing to carry the bulk and weight of a full SLR setup? If so, dSLRs from any of the major makers are good (Canon, Nikon, Sony etc). Then the question is, are you keen to learn the skills of photography? If so, dSLR will be worth it. If you are primarily interested in getting the most out of a camera with the best possible image, least weight and effort, then there's a whole range of costs and options to think about e.g. The highly regarded Sony RX-100 series pocketable camera. They are due to release their Mark 3 model on the market any day now for around the $800-900 mark. Many members here are happy with them. But they are no match for a proper dSLR. All a question of trade-offs, value and price point.

[north-north-west]

The big problem with shifting to a dSLR is that the journey has only just begun. You will keep coveting (and buying) extra lenses. While a single body isn't all that heavy, once you've added spare batteries and a good range of lenses, the weight becomes . . . well, not prohibitive, but certainly a matter of concern. Plus they require much more careful handling. Plus many people find they spend more and more time on post-processing, in order to do the images justice.

While I'm a dedicated dSLR user, I do sometimes bemoan the unwieldiness of the system as a whole. Just be sure that's the way you want to go before you take that first step.
But Canon make pretty good cameras. Even more importantly, they make great lenses. And it's the glass (after the eye and mind of the photographer) that makes the biggest difference.

[icefest]

The big problem with shifting to a dSLR is that the journey has only just begun. You will keep coveting (and buying) extra lenses. While a single body isn't all that heavy, once you've added spare batteries and a good range of lenses, the weight becomes . . . well, not prohibitive, but certainly a matter of concern. Plus they require much more careful handling. Plus many people find they spend more and more time on post-processing, in order to do the images justice.

While I'm a dedicated dSLR user, I do sometimes bemoan the unwieldiness of the system as a whole. Just be sure that's the way you want to go before you take that first step.
But Canon make pretty good cameras. Even more importantly, they make great lenses. And it's the glass (after the eye and mind of the photographer) that makes the biggest difference.

Oh no. I've stated this process too. Thankfully I only have one piece of glass yet. I have my eye on a 9mm fisheye though...

We'll see how I go with it, if I'd recommend my system to another. One thing I can say - a 1.8ghz atom tablet takes ages to process one raw image.

[GPSGuided]

Getting sucked into RAW will initiate another major cycle of HW upgrades at home! Take care.

[icefest]

I have a decent overclocked desktop at home that'll fix them right up - it's just frustrating to be unable to view them on my laptop.

[GPSGuided]

And soon your HDD will be filled by RAW files too...

[RonK]

Key question is, are you willing to carry the bulk and weight of a full SLR setup? If so, dSLRs from any of the major makers are good (Canon, Nikon, Sony etc). Then the question is, are you keen to learn the skills of photography? If so, dSLR will be worth it.

I'm not so sure that a dSLR is ideal for a beginner photographer. You'll likely spend too much time grappling with the technology which will obscure the artistic creativity of making pictures. The result may be that you take lots of technically good but uninteresting photos.

My photography has improved immensely since I relegated my SLR to the hall cupboard (it was like a millstone around my neck on several Himalayan treks) and turned my attention to recognising worthwhile photo opportunities and applying good composition. For someone with no great creative instinct, this approach has proved invaluable to me.

Have no doubt about it - cameras are mere technology, a means to an end. Photography is a creative art.

Start with an RX100 or LX7. Find out if you have the creative flair first.

[north-north-west]

Key question is, are you willing to carry the bulk and weight of a full SLR setup? If so, dSLRs from any of the major makers are good (Canon, Nikon, Sony etc). Then the question is, are you keen to learn the skills of photography? If so, dSLR will be worth it.

I'm not so sure that a dSLR is ideal for a beginner photographer. You'll likely spend too much time grappling with the technology which will obscure the artistic creativity of making pictures. The result may be that you take lots of technically good but uninteresting photos.

I've never owned anything but SLR's, my very first camera being a Canon AE-1 (and how I miss the f1.4 50mm & the f2 24mm I used with it). There's nothing wrong with starting with everything set on automatic (or program, or whatever), using it as a point and shoot, and building up from there.
I still don't use most of the bells and whistles on my dSLRs, just use what I'm comfortable with.

[GPSGuided]

I'm not so sure that a dSLR is ideal for a beginner photographer. You'll likely spend too much time grappling with the technology which will obscure the artistic creativity of making pictures...

Hence my question to the OP whether he wants to learn the skills of photography. Without knowing the basics ie. Focal length, shutter speed, aperture, ISO and importantly focus, the camera will own you than the other way round and be a photographer. Once the basics are learnt, then one can be the master of the camera, irrespective of the type of camera. As a matter of fact, the traditional camera to learn photography is a completely manual camera.

Last edited by GPSGuided on Sat 28 Jun, 2014 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Bubbalouie]

When I go on trips with the other half we usually have 2 cameras, I have an RX100 and she has an alpha 65.

Hers is a superior device from a technical standpoint, the effort of taking it out and using it (she has a front pocket) means it often doesn't get used (at least not as often as my camera). The end result is we get more nice photos from the RX100.

Having said that, I tend to take a lot of technically ok photos. Exposure, focus, colour etc are all good, but overall a significant portion of my pictures (I'd say >90%) tend to be a bit boring. Every now and then the composition and other settings are right. Overall I've found the RX100 to be better for us than a DSLR because we actually use it. The addition of a lensemate polarising and UV filter really helps with outdoor pictures too (clouds, landscapes and foliage are world's better).

That all said, some of the best pictures we've got were taken with phones too, just look at what other people can do:

http://www.ippawards.com/?project=2014-winners

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=ipho ... 60&bih=519

The point of all of this is, for my money the RX100 is pretty good value, especially with the addition of a polariser. But that's because it's smaller and more likely to be used (also if you don't like all the manual options the auto mode is pretty solid), this will vary a lot from person to person. If buying one I'd personally hold off and see how the mark 3 measures up against its predecessors.

[highercountry]

I've just bought a much cheaper alternative to the RX100 (and LX7), a Lumix LF1.
Only around $230-240 from Kogan at the moment. A very capable little camera.
Combine this with the Retina display on the iPad and the results are exquisite. I've never seen photos displayed so nicely.
The LF1 obviously falls short of the RS100's ability in terms of sensor size and the like but for a hack happy snapper such as I am it produces some brilliant results at a very nice price.
If things progress and I take to the photography caper then I might consider better but for now I have been very impressed with the latest purchase.
I'd recommend everyone try out the Retina displays on various Apple devises. As I said before, I've never seen photos look so good. Infinitely better than a standard computer display (or paper print for that matter).

[RonK]

I've never owned anything but SLR's, my very first camera being a Canon AE-1 (and how I miss the f1.4 50mm & the f2 24mm I used with it). There's nothing wrong with starting with everything set on automatic (or program, or whatever), using it as a point and shoot, and building up from there.
I still don't use most of the bells and whistles on my dSLRs, just use what I'm comfortable with.

Yes, my first camera was an AE-1 too, chosen because it was one of the few which offered a shutter-preferred exposure mode, and later an early EOS when the AE-1 was stolen in a burglary.

I still have a big carton with dozens of boxes of slides, and a huge chest full of prints. When I look at them now I realise I had no idea, and really I dunno why I haven't thrown them out years ago. Sentiment probably.

Last edited by RonK on Sat 28 Jun, 2014 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[RonK]

I'm not so sure that a dSLR is ideal for a beginner photographer. You'll likely spend too much time grappling with the technology which will obscure the artistic creativity of making pictures...

Hence my question to the OP whether he wants to learn the skills of photography. Without knowing the basics ie. Focal length, shutter speed, aperture, ISO and importantly focus, the camera will own you than the other way round and be a photographer. Once the basics are learnt, then one can be the master of the camera, irrespective of the type of camera. As a matter of fact, the traditional camera to learn photography is a completely manual camera.

My point is that creativity cannot be learned. You either have it or you don't.

Creative people usually have a natural eye for a picture opportunity and an instinct for good composition.

Unless you already know you're the creative type, i.e. you draw, paint, write poetry or lyrics, play an instrument, that sort of thing, then it's probably better not to invest in expensive gear until you know whether you have the talent.

[GPSGuided]

Creative people usually have a natural eye for a picture opportunity and an instinct for good composition.

Unless you already know you're the creative type, i.e. you draw, paint, write poetry or lyrics, play an instrument, that sort of thing, then it's probably better not to invest in expensive gear until you know whether you have the talent.

Sorry, can't agree with you there. One does not need to be the "creative type" to do well with photography. Then there are some creative types who can't operate a camera properly and turns out crappy photos.

[nickthetasmaniac]

Something light and relatively easily transportable (for bushwalking) would be a plus, although I accept that a decent camera isn't likely to fit my pocket anymore.

Hi Munch!

On the contrary, now more than ever a decent camera can definitely fit in your pocket

From what you've said, and what's available, I wouldn't recommend a dSLR. The cheap ones aren't particularly good (when you consider the non-dSLR options) and unless you have specific needs (eg. sport or bird photography) the ability to change lenses can be more of a hinderance than anything. The age of 'need a good camera - get a dSLR' is dead and buried and don't let a salesperson convince you otherwise. There are much more compact units out there that get close (enough) to the performance and image quality of a dSLR in most circumstances at a fraction of the size.

Other's have mentioned the Sony RX100 and I honestly can't think of a better choice, especially the recently announced MkIII model.
- Large sensor (not as bit as a dSLR but much bigger than a normal point and shoot) with good dynamic range, good low light performance, and more resolution than you'll ever need.
- Good enough results in Auto-everything, but if you want to play manual controls are right at your fingertips.
- Tilting screen, which is amazingly useful for photos at funny angles, especially when you're wearing a rucksack (think rainforest fungi).
- Built-in viewfinder (MkIII only) which will do wonders for the quality of your low-light shots (much less camera shake than holding the camera at arms length, aka. smartphone).
- Excellent lens with all the zoom range you'll need (most dSLR newbies, myself included, fall into the trap of buying way to many lenses that add buggerall to the quality of your photography and a whole lot to the weight and cost of your kit).
- Very, very little. It will fit in your pocket.

My thoughts... Get an RX100 MkIII, it's capable enough that if you start getting interested in photography it's going to keep you entertained for a while, and give you great results in the meantime. If you get really keen down the track you're not locked into a system so you can always get a dSLR then. But for someone in your position I see no need to complicate matters with big bulky bodies and lenses that you do not need.

[RonK]

My thoughts... Get an RX100 MkIII, it's capable enough that if you start getting interested in photography it's going to keep you entertained for a while, and give you great results in the meantime. If you get really keen down the track you're not locked into a system so you can always get a dSLR then. But for someone in your position I see no need to complicate matters with big bulky bodies and lenses that you do not need.

[whitefang]

My thoughts... Get an RX100 MkIII, it's capable enough that if you start getting interested in photography it's going to keep you entertained for a while, and give you great results in the meantime. If you get really keen down the track you're not locked into a system so you can always get a dSLR then. But for someone in your position I see no need to complicate matters with big bulky bodies and lenses that you do not need.

+1

I bought a dslr last year as my first camera and am now realising that the RX100 would have been a more suitable choice. I do like my dslr, but for my skills it is no doubt overkill. It is also a heavy piece of kit to be lugging around for pictures that aren't usually all that great. If I were taking great photos with it a fair amount of the time I could see it being really worth the extra weight, but currently not so much.

[Champion_Munch]

Hi all,

Thanks for all the responses, I'm happy to see this topic has sparked some interesting conversation.

Based on everyone's comments, I am leaning very heavily towards an RX100 instead of an entry level DSLR. The only choice left to make is which model to go for. The review here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/20 ... -rx100-iii seems to suggest the mark III is not really necessary for what I would use it for, given that I would get a similar level of photo quality from the mark II. Any thoughts here?

Also, Bubbalouie you mentioned that you use a polarising and UV filter on the RX100 - can this be done for any of the three models? Are there other options for modifications or is this about all that is needed?

Cheers,
Munch

[RonK]

Even if you do ultimately go dSLR, you won't regret having an RX100 in your lineup.

I think you would be happy with a Mk II unless an electronic viewfinder is a priority.

Filters are magnetic and will fit all models. There are various brands - mine is a Magfilter circular polarizer.

About the only other option available is a grip, but I've not found one necessary.

My RX100 MK I fits very neatly in a Tamrac Digital 1 Model 5691 case with the filter attached.

[Bubbalouie]

I use a bayonet style filter rather than a magnetic one, found here:

http://www.lensmateonline.com/store/sonyRX100.php

You should be able to use the same adapter on all 3 models.

The only thing I've done is add the filter adapter. I believe there are some stick on hand grips and other such items but I really don't see much need for them so haven't bothered.

I use a small neoprene pouch inside a 1L dry bag as a case, it's a bit ugly as a case but also very flexible and fairly water proof.

[nickthetasmaniac]

The only choice left to make is which model to go for. The review here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/20 ... -rx100-iii seems to suggest the mark III is not really necessary for what I would use it for, given that I would get a similar level of photo quality from the mark II. Any thoughts here?

For landscape kinda stuff the main benefit I see in the MkIII is the 24mm (equivalent) wide-angle, as opposed to 28mm on the older two versions.

The difference between 24mm and 28mm is more than you might think...

[Nuts]

18mm is nice.. but damn, wait there, restricted already? : )

[GPSGuided]

Nuts, try panorama function! I also have an iPhone app that allowed me to sweep a whole quadrant of space and it'll rebuild the scene, matching both side to side as well as top and bottom. Pretty neat when one doesn't have a 12mm lens close by.

[RonK]

Nuts, try panorama function! I also have an iPhone app that allowed me to sweep a whole quadrant of space and it'll rebuild the scene, matching both side to side as well as top and bottom. Pretty neat when one doesn't have a 12mm lens close by.

Tried that. RX100 Mk I does panoramas quite well - Lakes Pukaki, Tekapo, Wanaka and Wakatipu, with Otago Harbour thrown in.

[icefest]

Nice shots, but how do you keep the water running off the edge of the screen?

Did you stitch these, or just crop?

[photohiker]

These look like in-camera panos icefest. You select pano on the mode dial, frame up on the edge of the scene, push the shutter button and pan. The camera takes multiple shots while you pan and stitches them in camera.

[GPSGuided]

Just as a novelty, a wide pano produced by AutoStitch.app at The Chasm. Provides panorama both in two axis. Obviously this one was a bit of a wild go at it.

[RonK]

Nice shots, but how do you keep the water running off the edge of the screen?

Did you stitch these, or just crop?

All done by the RX100 in panorama mode. Untouched by human hands.

[Nuts]

WA though, not pano, besides, aren't they still just 'cropped'? Nice pics btw.

edit; I see full frame -joined. Still not Wide Angle though..? unless, I guess, you stitched another row on top?

..but them how do you do that keeping the perspective of wider angles.. I dunno, lost and intrigued..