Beginner Camera

[BigJayDogg3]

Howdy.

I'm looking around for a beginner-ish camera, preferably a used mirrorless, that I can use for stills. This is somewhat of a toe dip, so if I enjoy it/want to dive deeper into the hobby, I can pick up a better camera in time and use the same lenses, but I do want something that is going to be a step up from pulling out phones (iPhone XS soon to be 15 Pro Max for me, SGS 23U for my wife) every time we try to take pictures.

The idea is I spend <$400 to find out if its something I want to delve deeper into and add/replace this camera with a DSLR/nicer 4/3. If yes, I can sell for roughly what I bought it for, and if lugging around a separate camera isn't for me I can either keep it for special occasions, or again, sell it for what I have into it.

Probably 90/10 stills vs video. It may see some occasional video, but it isn't the primary concern. Age doesn't particularly scare me; I'd have no real issue with a 10 year old camera given I'd still be able to use modern cables (Mini/Micro USB) and storage (SD/MicroSD)

Any suggestions? Do I need to increase the budget? Should I only look at Nikon/Canon/Panasonic? Should I avoid anything over 5 years old? Should I just buy the cheapest thing on FB Marketplace with modern connectivity and decide where to go based upon that?

 

[bitnick]

Why do you want a better camera? Better in what respect? What does "step up" mean here?

The lenses are the expensive part of photography, is my experience. At the $400 budget you'll likely start with a camera with a kit lens (limited zoom, small aperture ratio), and if you get hooked you'll probably realise that you want specialised lenses for e.g. macro photography, portraits, nature photography, astrophotography or whatever. And then the lenses will more or less decide which camera you get. You might even need several cameras to fit the lenses!

I wanted to do e.g. macro photography but not enough to want to pay the thousands of dollars that a modern, good lens costs, so I went with a mirrorless camera (a Samsung NX500, no longer made), a lens adapter, and vintage fully manual Nikkor lenses. It works and has its charm, but I do miss auto-focus now and then!

(And if you get serious about video then that's a different thing again, where focus pumping, silent auto-focus, focus pulling, smooth panning heads etc becomes important - not to mention audio!)

 

[Axman]

You can get a Pentax K K-01 and a kit lens off ebay for $200 or less, and with a bayonet adapter you can use it with every Pentax lens ever made. Get some old manual lenses for pennies at a camera shop.

 

[bitnick]

(Sorry, I kind of lost sight of the point I wanted to make in my previous post, which was: don't expect to want to use the same lenses if you dive deeper into the hobby later.)

 

[drutman]

Why do you want a better camera? Better in what respect? What does "step up" mean here?

The lenses are the expensive part of photography, is my experience. At the $400 budget you'll likely start with a camera with a kit lens (limited zoom, small aperture ratio), and if you get hooked you'll probably realise that you want specialised lenses for e.g. macro photography, portraits, nature photography, astrophotography or whatever. And then the lenses will more or less decide which camera you get. You might even need several cameras to fit the lenses!

I wanted to do e.g. macro photography but not enough to want to pay the thousands of dollars that a modern, good lens costs, so I went with a mirrorless camera (a Samsung NX500, no longer made), a lens adapter, and vintage fully manual Nikkor lenses. It works and has its charm, but I do miss auto-focus now and then!

(And if you get serious about video then that's a different thing again, where focus pumping, silent auto-focus, focus pulling, smooth panning heads etc becomes important - not to mention audio!)

If you want to do macro on the cheap go to my DIY website. https://danrutman.tripod.com/Web/Index.html

 

[toast0]

Look on local marketplaces, craigslist, fb, etc. Around me, a quick look on craigslist gets me an entry level DSLR with a lens or two for $200-$400. A fair number of options for higher end, for more dollars. Mirrorless was harder to find, but maybe if you search for brands it would work better.

There's a lot of people with nice cameras that they don't use because their phones do a good enough job and their phones are always there.

Video on DSLRs was a couple years in 10 years ago, and you'll have some cameras that only do 10 minutes for import tarrif avoidance and heat management. If video is important go newer, and look carefully for microphone input(s), etc. Video features were added to lower end cameras first, as they didn't want to distract from high end users.

If you're ok with selling whatever you get to start with, you don't need to worry about picking the best lens system etc to start with. If you buy used and don't trash it, you can sell what you get for probably similar to what you paid, and then buy into the system you want.

 

[michalrz]

What you're describing I'm pimping whenever old and unimportant for movies are factors is a nice Panasonic DMC-FZ30 ~2007 vintage.
I got it on the 7th of March 2007.
Hundreds of thousands of snaps,
some parts missing, some exchanged.
Never dropped once.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I'm just going to throw out some opinions based on your stated purpose and budget, etc. If you don't want to read my long opine about gaining traction with photography than just skip to the tl;dr at the bottom.

The big question you have to ask yourself is: why?
Why do you want or need to get a camera? You do state in the OP that you want to be able to take "better pictures" vs a cellphone, but better in what way?

There is a common saying attributed to Chase Jarvis as: "The best camera is the one you have with you." If you need a camera to pull out to shoot things in daily life, frankly the utility that your cellphone will get you is just much higher than a standalone camera.
"Daily life" photos, frankly are a pain to shoot on a separate camera system unless you 1.) Want to carry a camera with you everywhere (with all of the size and weight and bulk, etc that implies) and 2.) Are okay with being known as the guy that carries a camera everywhere.

Serious enthusiasts are okay with having a camera with a strap that they carry everywhere. I've done so off and on for years and I have to tell you that it's VERY rare to meet someone else doing that who isn't a tourist. I say all of this to say: most people don't want to have to carry a camera around everywhere in their normal lives. I hate to put it this way, but it's true: casual photographers kind of don't exist because the hassle of using a camera is simply a lot higher than as you note, pulling out a cellphone and just shooting with it.

Your 15 Pro Max will also have effectively 3 focal lengths. I haven't looked at what they are recently, but roughly an 18mm 28mm and 56-150mm in 35mm terms. If you wanted to replicate those 3 focal lengths on a reasonable camera, you're going to have to spend a lot more.

Which brings me to the next section: Cost.
How that is relevant is: what level of money will you have to spend to get image that are better than the ones from the camera you'll already have in your pocket (your phone)?

And frankly if you really like the smooth, crisp, mostly noise-free, highly saturated look that comes out of an iPhone or other flagship camera, the answer is: a pretty decent chunk of money. Because iPhones (and top Androids) all are using a huge amount of computational photography tricks to deliver what otherwise wouldn't be possible.

It's true that they can't, and won't ever be able to emulate large optics or large sensors (physics being physics), so things like boke quality, and low light can't match what can be had on a dedicated camera platform. However for what it is, they're dang good and in order to find a dedicated camera that will shoot better will cost substantially more money.

To put it another way, the iPhone killed "Point and Shoot" cameras, as the utility isn't there anymore and any image quality advantage became marginal due to computational photography. And Point and Shoots were where companies like Canon made way more of their money that selling dSLR's/mirrorless systems.

On Hobbies:
I would describe that the way this more or less is, is that there kind of has to be a determination that you're going to dive in on the outset. It's like learning cooking or doing body building as hobbies. Can you start small and build up and learn as you go etc? Yes. But I'm drawing that parallel because you have to know that they all will require work and time to get something out of it.

You will have to carry a piece of equipment. You'll have to make sure your batteries are charged and your SD cards are dumped. You'll have to spend time color grading. You'll have to learn about focal lengths and the exposure triangle (well if you want to get the most out of this anyway). And on down the line. That can either be fun, or sound like work. Depending on perspective. Just realize that photography definitely is a 10,000 hour+ skill. People spend their whole life on it. And it is because it's rewarding and now it's more accessible than ever, but it still requires work. If you never intend to take your camera out of auto and you never use anything other than a jpeg anyway, then honestly save your back and just use a phone.

So all that said:
If I was going to buy a camera today, and indeed if I am giving recommendations, I would say that most people will need to spend around $800-$1500 if they want something in the new category that will get them a different enough experience from a cellphone to give a good experience.

Older cameras are great. If you don't mind buying into dead systems then there are a lot of great options there. The trouble is, even with older cameras glass will still be expensive and they frankly may be too frustrating for beginners that don't want to deal with old camera issues today.

A Canon 5D2 as an example can still take wonderful photos today and can be had for $200-$400 US. You could buy a 50mm f/1.4 for it for another $150 or so. However the Canon 5D2 has an absolutely abysmal autofocus system that after shooting on an iPhone will feel shockingly bad. And it doesn't have focusing screens to easily focus by hand. And you can't really shoot with the camera using the back screen like you can on a new camera. And that is to say nothing about how by modern standards it can't really shoot in dark scenes as it has poor noise/high ISO performance (and heaven help you if you want to also focus in dark scenes, which it basically can't do).

Again, replicating the 3 focal lengths of an iPhone even on a Canon 5D2 which is from 2008, would still cost at least $700 or so.

What would I recommend?
I recommend the Fuji X100V, because it's incredibly simple, has beautiful color, you can get away with just shooting jpegs, has nice AF, and is incredibly compact/light weight (relatively). Those last two features matter a lot because it lowers the difficulty in taking the camera places. In my 5D2 example, it's a big, heavy camera, and let's just say most people would quickly start leaving it at home just because it's heavy/feels like a hassle. To save money you could buy the previous gen Fuji X100F.

The X100V is an expensive trendy camera and it also doesn't have a swappble lens. So if you want those kinds of features..

tl;dr: perhaps the Fuji XE-3 might be worth looking into. It's around $650-$750. You may be able to find it with lenses or extra batteries etc. Pair it with a prime of your choice and you're ready to go. The Fujifilm 23mm f/2.0 R WR Can be had for as low as $150-$250 and is probably a good place to start.

If you want to spend less than this, it gets harder and harder to recommend over simply using your flagship phone which you and your wife both have (or will have), and that's all discussed above.

I have a pretty large knowledge about cameras and camera systems if you end up doing your own research and want opinions on whatever you find/read about.

 

[northrop]

There's not much more to add to what UnknownSouljer already posted above, but here's some additional food for thought.

Camera is just a tool like any other. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji... you can pick any one you like, and you'll be able to create equally fantastic images. Their offerings are very similar within the segments, and the differences between them don't start to matter until you really start to push the boundaries of their capabilities. So how do you know which one to go with? Honestly, I'd suggest just going to a store, and playing with them all, and see which one 'feels right' in your hand. Which menu system you find most intuitive and easy to use. You might still not know what the heck you're doing after holding a camera for 30seconds, but if something feels weird, it will feel weird later on too.

I've recommended the X100 to friends in the past, only to find out they stopped using it because they didn't like how it felt in their hands. It's a very personal thing, and it doesn't take anything away from the overall great camera. If you're uncomfortable with a camera, you're less likely to use it.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

There's not much more to add to what UnknownSouljer already posted above, but here's some additional food for thought.

Camera is just a tool like any other. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji... you can pick any one you like, and you'll be able to create equally fantastic images. Their offerings are very similar within the segments, and the differences between them don't start to matter until you really start to push the boundaries of their capabilities. So how do you know which one to go with? Honestly, I'd suggest just going to a store, and playing with them all, and see which one 'feels right' in your hand. Which menu system you find most intuitive and easy to use. You might still not know what the heck you're doing after holding a camera for 30seconds, but if something feels weird, it will feel weird later on too.

I've recommended the X100 to friends in the past, only to find out they stopped using it because they didn't like how it felt in their hands. It's a very personal thing, and it doesn't take anything away from the overall great camera. If you're uncomfortable with a camera, you're less likely to use it.

This is a really good addendum.

If I had to summarize my rant, other than the philosophical portions of course, ergonomics and size/weight would be the things I'd prioritize over almost everything else for a new shooter. Past that though it would be looking for camera systems that will give a noticeable improvement to image quality (usually sensor size and speed of the optic), has reasonable AF, and reasonable high ISO performance (at least reasonable results out of ISO3200 +/-). Those are the things that will likely matter most to new photographers.

There's certain systems I'd avoid for a number of reasons. However if you're buying new, it's pretty hard to buy a bad camera these days. It's just whether or not it has good value (some cameras have great value, and others are very overpriced for what they are - but they won't be "bad" cameras). And whether or not it meets the specific needs of the shooter.

 

[michalrz]

Nice explanation Souljer and Northrop. That's how it actually works.

Your 15 Pro Max will also have effectively 3 focal lengths. I haven't looked at what they are recently, but roughly an 18mm 28mm and 56-150mm in 35mm terms.

And those focals cover a good chunk of whatever requirements you will probably have in the field. A 56-150 mm lens is what I'd probably use as a daily driver. Above 150 mm I would probably have to grab a tripod, because I like to shoot in the woods, late in the day, and with the aperture usually quite small. I had a very similar setup with my Nikon D50 which I bought used for peanuts and sold off at basically the same price.

Because iPhones (and top Androids) all are using a huge amount of computational photography tricks to deliver what otherwise wouldn't be possible.

Bingo. This used to extend to old point and shoot cameras, too, in a reverse sort of way.
I remember installing CHDK on an old dirt-cheap Canon a430 to unlock RAW mode. Turns out, the jpegs were absolutely dogshit compared to what the sensor actually saw.
I use a Motorola g10 phone, it lets me use RAW and I usually do. The reason is that I like softer contrast, and I can achieve that losslessly (compared to editing a jpeg) in RAW Therapee.
I take lots of pictures with it. The only serious limitation is the focal length - by comparison, my FZ30 has an equivalent of 420 mm, and I love searching for opportunities to use that and thus achieve surprising, unique takes.

Older cameras are great.

Yes, this. You'd be surprised what old gear can do (and always could do). I wouldn't mind buying a random, say, Canon EOS30D with even a kit lens only to explore it, push the envelope so to say. The tinkering is the fun part for me. I took my first RAW shot in Fall of 2007 and haven't looked back (unless I need immediate capture).
Edit: older cameras will suck at video, though, compared to new offerings

I recommend the Fuji X100V

That's the sort of camera I drool over. It does what the big boys do, and fits in your pocket.

 

[bluestang]

I'm still using my Nikon D300 lol. Mainly because one, I haven't had the extra funds to get a newer DSLR and two, I haven't been getting out as much to shoot

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I'm still using my Nikon D300 lol. Mainly because one, I haven't had the extra funds to get a newer DSLR and two, I haven't been getting out as much to shoot

Right exactly. And this is a common problem for a lot of people that take up photography as a hobby. And I have to say that lowering barriers to actually using the system is paramount, especially for casual shooters. Otherwise it just takes too much effort to consistently use.

That’s generally why I’m recommending the cameras I do. Stuff that is small, lightweight, and otherwise easy to carry around. And then ergonomics. I kinda don’t like to or want to recommend dSLR’s anymore for that reason. Size/weight even for a “tiny” APSC dSLR camera are just much more than pretty much any mirrorless system, even if it’s a full frame.

 

[Ryleh]

I don't think you need to spend a dollar more to take better pictures than an iphone. If you want something you can take tens of thousands of shots on and look to own something you can actually learn to become a better photographer with get a full frame camera. The mean-time-before-failure for anything else is 1/10th to 1/20th of what you can expect to get from a well-cared for but heavily worn device imo.

With a few weeks of deliberate effort using something like the D300 or a 5D MK 1 i think you could learn to compose proper shots. Your framing might not be the best but you'll develop instincts on how to actually create a photograph with the distinct style you are looking for in varying and sometimes challenging conditions. A more consumer cropped lens or a mirrorless camera will only put impediments in front of you. When you don't know anything, yeah, it'll just take a shot, but when you really want to take something to impress you'll be left fiddling with low to no hope if getting the shot you really want.

There are some odd exceptions but not many. Even something as low as 6 Megapixels is good. It's easier to compose shots and they handle darkness better. Canon's generally adapt vintage lens more broadly than nikon's except with their own retro canon lenses incidentally. For video some also support Magic Lantern which, while absolutely amazing, is pretty lacking in how-to material if you're just getting started. They feel less like toys or gadgets with idiotic unchangeable defaults or pre-programmed auto modes that don't make sense. Once you learn the rule of thirds and develop a good sense for how your camera + lens handles in various conditions you'll want something that you can make quick rapid adjustments to in under <3 seconds. If it takes any longer to adjust your iso, aperture, shutter speed, auto-focus mode, etc# you'll feel severely limited.

To list a few of my favorte (cheap) vintage lens:
Jupiter-9 85mm f/2
Super Takumar 50mm f1.4
Nikon 105mm F/4 micro