[John Burnes]

All-

Since some on this site seem to very good at photography, I'd thought I poll folks as to what camera I should buy.  I am looking to photograph courses, people, birds, and images suitable for print and web.  I have no idea what the cost would be, but to put it in car terms, I'd like a fully loaded v-6 Honda Accord to a fully loaded BMW 3 series.  Please include brand and model #.  Thank you!

[Charlie_Bell]

Your description is actually pretty helpful, but another question would be size and convenience.   On photo websites, the usual categories for size depend on where you want to carry it:  in a jeans pocket, a jacket pocket, in a case on your belt, or around your neck.  To make a car analogy for size rather than price & features, do you want a subcompact, a compact, a midsize, an SUV or a Suburban?

As far as convenience, should we assume you want a camera with a single (zoom) lens rather than interchangeable ones?  Another question is would you insist on having a viewfinder you can look through, or will the 3" screen on the back suffice?

As far as well-regarded compacts, I'd suggest looking at the Canon SX 280HS ($179), Panasonic Lumix DMC-Lx7 ($300), Canon G16($500) the Sony RX100 Mk II ($700).  A high quality very small one is  Canon S120 ($450).  If you want to consider an excellent easy-to-use SMALL all-purpose around-the-neck camera, there's the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 ($390 on sale).    

All the prices are from B & H Photo.  B & H a good place for research, along with DP Review, CNET and (to a lesser extent) Amazon.  For a  bullet-point, side-by-side comparisons I'd recommend a site called  snapsort.com.  For size comparisons, I'd recommend camerasize.com.

[Ronald Montesano]

See PM.

[John Burnes]

Thnaks guys.

I am not looking for convenience and don't have a preference with regards to lens (unless I should).

[Jud_T]

Personally I'd say-  best value:  any Panasonic Lumix that has a Leica lens.  Midrange:  any of the newer Canon SLRs.   High end:  any Leica that strikes your fancy and budget.

[Douglas Kelley]

There is a shift going on in the camera world from traditional DSLR cameras from Canon and Nikon to "mirrorless" cameras which ... don't have a mirror.  The technology difference shouldn't matter much to you.  In mirrorless cameras the image is digitally rendered in the viewfinder, so it feels a little different than using traditional cameras, but not to those that are used to composing the image by holding the camera away from the body and looking at a screen.

Check this link for an interesting post from Trey Ratcliff, who is a relatively prominent next-generation landscape photographer who dumped all of his high-end Nikon equipment in favor of Sony:  http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2012/01/04/dslrs-are-a-dying-breed-3rd-gen-cameras-are-the-future/

The big advantage of the mirrorless cameras is they have fewer parts and are much more compact.  The base Sony NEX cameras have a sensor size equivalent to the base level Canon and Nikon DSLRs in a much smaller package, so image quality is very similar.  There is a pretty good suite of lenses available.  I have too much $$$ invested in Canon lenses to change, but if I were starting over, I'd probably get a Sony NEX 7 with either a 18-200 lenses (better reach) or the 18-105 lenses (larger aperture and therefore better in lower light conditions) for everyday shots and the 10-18 wide angle lens for golf course and landscape shots.  You can easily carry the Sony NEX 7 with the wide-angle lens in your golf bag and is, in my opinion, the best setup for taking golf course photos.

Although the cost of that package may add up closer to a 5-series or 7-series equivalent

[Joe Hancock]

I don't think anyone has mentioned it yet, but I think having a lens capable of adding filters is very important. UV and a circular polarizer would be the two I'm thinking most important for outdoor landscape pictures.

Joe

[Tony Ristola]

All-

Since some on this site seem to very good at photography, I'd thought I poll folks as to what camera I should buy.  I am looking to photograph courses, people, birds, and images suitable for print and web.  I have no idea what the cost would be, but to put it in car terms, I'd like a fully loaded v-6 Honda Accord to a fully loaded BMW 3 series.  Please include brand and model #.  Thank you!

It's not the camera that makes the photographer... may I suggest you hit www.kenrockwell.com as he does a great job with camera reviews.

The best for the money in the DSLR category was Nikon's D40. The D3100 is an updated version and he highly recommends it, though not the D3200. The D3100 you can probably find for $300 or so.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

His site goes through the myths of photography and camera buying... for example... the number of pixels doesn't mean much, and my D40 with 6.1 was enough to shoot a poster size photo... and most I would guess don't need it for that.

Happy hunting.

[Dan Moore]

For BMW quality you need to go beyond point and shoots and camera phones and go with mirror less or DSLR camera's. If budget really isn't an issue and you want to spend BMW money (really) get a Hasselbad Medium Format camera. 

Sony is coming out with a new mirrorless  camera in April, the A6000 which is the next generation in the NEX series.  It sounds like the perfect carry while you play camera at a great value price point.  About $800 with lens.  The Fuji X series is also reported to be excellent.  See the X E-2 or X Pro-1 which is due for an update. 

I prefer www.dpreview.com for camera info. 

Here is the their preview on the Sony. 

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-a6000

I have a Canon 5D which is not suitable for use while you play but the quality as a landscape camera can't be beat.  I assume high end Leica's, Nikon's and Sony's are good too. 

Whatever  system or brand you go with generally locks you into their lenses so its a long term commitment.   

Shoot raw and invest in a good monitor and Lightroom. 

[DMoriarty]

I second the vote for dpreview.com.  Technical overkill, but reading just the conclusions can be very helpful.

There are a lot of good cameras between point-and-shoot and the Hasselblad Medium Format, which costs close to $30,000 for the camera body alone.

[Gib_Papazian]

John,

My suggestion would be to purchase a refurbished 60D from Canon, which is essentially a new camera that has been thoroughly checked out. I've got one and use it often for the same thing you're looking for. If I'm getting serious about something, then I pull out my 5D Mark III, but in order to take advantage of the really expensive camera, you've got to be pretty advanced. Otherwise, you're driving a Formula Car on the freeway. It also does not sound like you need a full frame sensor (the 60D and 7D have APS-C sensors) and the 60D is also handy for home movies because of the flip-out, adjustable screen.

If you are going to spend money on something, I'm a huge proponent of purchasing so-called "L Lenses." The build on them is terrific and you'll get far sharper results. Remember, there are always trade-offs in photography. The longer the zoom, the slower it will be - and the Canon EF lenses are mushy at their widest apertures, so for anything below f5.6, it might be best to push the ISO.

My favorite lens for shooting head shots and portraits is the Canon 100mm-L (fixed focal length). That is one to have in your arsenal. Don't let the sales guy talk you into the "Nifty 50mm" f1.8 lens. You might as well take $99 and flush it down the loo. However, the Canon 50mm f1.4 lens is absolutely terrific and will be the most versatile (and portable) glass you'll ever find.

If you want to take a gigantic step up and grow with your camera, then go get a 5D Mark II. You can get a refurbished one for $1400 and the practical difference between the II and III won't be apparent unless you shoot quite a bit in extremely low light - like 10 foot candles or less. The JPEG images you'll get on the Mark II with the camera set on full automatic are pretty impressive.

Everybody seems to like Lightroom, but I find that Aperture for fine polishing and iPhoto for quicky corrections works extremely well. I'm a MAC guy, so it could be my prejudices for all things Apple. Really, the best thing is to get the shot as close as possible in-camera, which takes practice in terms of settings. Shoot Raw when you mean it and best of luck.

Photography, like golf architecture, is a form of madness in which you may exhaust yourself, but never your subject. 

[Mark Johnson]

for me, the lens is more important than the camera.

A pancake lens like   http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/canon/announcements/canons-new-ef-40mm-f28-pancake-lens-doesnt-waffle-quality   could do wonders especially for tighter shots

it is also small enough that you can carry it with you without taking up too much space.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()