Getting myself a camera

[noelbotevera]

The vast majority of you people have cameras, so I decided to jump on the bandwagon and starting to find myself a DSLR (which I've heard is supposed to be a step-up from a point and shoot or a compact). I've looked into many websites, but I'm still investigating for a camera for me. For a somewhat vague choice, the Nikon 3300 is said to be good for beginners, and is a kind of budget camera. I'll find out a budget and work out more details later in this thread.

Here's some questions:
1. Do you people think that it is absolutely necessary for it to have Wi-Fi (on the go sharing)?
2. What settings do you people prefer for certain situations (such as taking pictures of interchanges or signs)?
3. Do you recommend any equipment to help take pictures (tripods, suction cups, etc.)? (important note: I'm not old enough to drive, so that means I have a couple more options)
4. Do you bring spare batteries and SD cards in certain situations (ex. long roadtrips (that are at least 2+ hours), stretches with a lot of signs, large amount of erroneous or plain despicable signs)?

[vdeane]

I use a point and shoot (Kodak EasyShare C653 if anyone's curious; sadly, they don't make them any more) and have gotten really good shots in AntiBlur mode with the flash off and the optical zoom all the way in (no digital, it just shrinks the image), so no help on DSLR stuff, but I can provide some insight on the other stuff.

1. My camera theoretically has something like it, but I've never used it.  Actually, haven't used it on my phone either, aside from setting my Facebook profile picture to my plushie clown fish.
2. See first paragraph.
3. I just hold the camera in my hand.  It does take practice.  At least you can practice as a passenger first... I learned while driving.
4. I keep an extra set of rechargeable batteries when I take my camera most of the time, and the recharger if I'm staying over night.  I don't think I've used more than two sets of batteries in a day in ages, if ever.  Results may vary by camera.

[Brandon]

Like Val, I also have an EasyShare (again, I also wish Kodak still made them - I think they're better than most cameras), but a CD43.  I do much the same, but I use lithium batteries (AA) instead of rechargable.  The camera was bought Black Friday 2005, and still works well.

[noelbotevera]

Just wanted to throw this out there, but this is not a definite decision. Just like what you two said, I'll certainly consider it when the time comes. Since the EasyShare is dead, I'll need to find other choices or settle with probably a bridge camera.

[1995hoo]

I take it you do not have a camera now? If not, it might be better to start with a decent point-and-shoot, especially if you are indeed 12 years old. The main reason I cite your age is that most people that age have a limited budget. When you buy a DSLR, you're committing yourself to that manufacturer's products and maybe some third-party items. Nikon lenses don't work on Canon cameras, for example. You will want multiple lenses (that's a major reason to buy a DSLR), and lenses can be expensive, so it's not a decision to take lightly. Plus there are other costs that go with a DSLR (you'd want a camera bag, extra memory cards, sooner or later a tripod, a cable release....). I simply think that unless you can get a DSLR at low cost, say a family member hands one down (my Minolta film SLR, which I still have, was a hand-me-down from my father when I was in high school), your money would be better used buying a good point-and-shoot and getting good with the basics of photo composition and the like. The various automatic exposure modes can be a good way to learn some of the theory behind photography. Plus you'd probably keep the point-and-shoot after you do get a DSLR because there are times you cannot, or just don't want to, take a DSLR with you (some places, like some sports arenas, don't allow them).

Things to look for in a point-and-shoot include a high optical zoom number, a quality lens, and a fast shutter. I also like to have a real viewfinder. Most people use the screen, but sometimes light can wash out the screen, and polarized sunglasses (which I have to wear on bright days for medical reasons) usually make the screen unusable. The high optical zoom number is important because digital zoom isn't as good. Digital zoom attempts to extrapolate what "should" be there. It typically results in jaggy-looking photos. If you've ever seen a photo that looks highly "digitized," you know what I mean.

A few years ago Ms1995hoo's old point-and-shoot died and I got her a new one for Christmas. Did a lot of research first, read reviews online from both professionals and users on sites like Crutchfield, Amazon, etc. (It's easy enough to tell a well-written, thoughtful review on those sites, even if you have to sort through some drivel.) Once I picked out a camera (a Sony that is now discontinued), I priced it out on the foregoing sites plus Beach Camera, B&H, J&R, and some local places, and I ultimately bought from whichever one threw in the best promotional stuff like an extra memory card and a carrying case. She loves the camera, still uses it all the time and gets great results.

One other possibility: B&H have a very good used-camera department accessible online. Worth checking out as a way to save some money.


(Edited when I saw autocorrect changed "Sony" to "song"!)

[noelbotevera]

I take it you do not have a camera now? If not, it might be better to start with a decent point-and-shoot, especially if you are indeed 12 years old. The main reason I cite your age is that most people that age have a limited budget.

I kind of do. They're smartphone cameras (Nokia Lumia 635 I believe), and even then they're not that good unless we touch it up in post-processing. I am 12, so my budget might be tight, though I can get by on hand me downs, used cameras, and the like. Point-and-shoots seem like to be a good place to start and learn, though bridge cameras or beginner DSLR's do the job just as well.

I can't rely too much on info guides on cameras, so at some point I'll have to hit the books or internet to learn more about photography.

[oscar]

I'll second 1995hoo's advice to start with a polnt-and-shoot. Another consideration is that a point-and-shoot will be smaller, and therefore easier to carry around, than a DSLR. Especially if you want to take lots of photos, to improve your photographic technique, more photos with a point-and-shoot will be better than fewer photos with a DSLR.

Many terrific photos posted on this forum were shot with point-and-shoots.

[noelbotevera]

I'll second 1995hoo's advice to start with a polnt-and-shoot. Another consideration is that a point-and-shoot will be smaller, and therefore easier to carry around, than a DSLR. Especially if you want to take lots of photos, to improve your photographic technique, more photos with a point-and-shoot will be better than fewer photos with a DSLR.

Many terrific photos posted on this forum were shot with point-and-shoots.

Oh yeah, I've looked at other enthusiast websites (such as Abandoned Ohio, Negative G, etc.) and I've noticed that those with DSLR's have a fanny pack or camera bag with them. Except those people upgraded over time (and most likely people on this forum too, people such as H.B. Elkins have been posting pictures since at least 1995).

I wasn't sure if the photos posted on the forum used point and shoots. They looked a lot like DSLR or mirrorless photos.

[Mapmikey]

I'll second 1995hoo's advice to start with a polnt-and-shoot. Another consideration is that a point-and-shoot will be smaller, and therefore easier to carry around, than a DSLR. Especially if you want to take lots of photos, to improve your photographic technique, more photos with a point-and-shoot will be better than fewer photos with a DSLR.

Many terrific photos posted on this forum were shot with point-and-shoots.

Oh yeah, I've looked at other enthusiast websites (such as Abandoned Ohio, Negative G, etc.) and I've noticed that those with DSLR's have a fanny pack or camera bag with them. Except those people upgraded over time (and most likely people on this forum too, people such as H.B. Elkins have been posting pictures since at least 1995).

I wasn't sure if the photos posted on the forum used point and shoots. They looked a lot like DSLR or mirrorless photos.

All of my photos on the internet are from a simple point and shoot camera.  95% of my road pics are from a moving vehicle so the trick is being able to hold the camera still and learning to time when to press the button to capture the thing you are trying to photograph without it being blurry (or missed entirely).

It doesn't have to be an expensive endeavor...

[TravelingBethelite]

I use a decently complicated point-and-shoot GE A1050, and I've gotten some pretty good (and pretty bad, I must admit) shots with. It all depends on what you want/are willing to spend and how in-depth/complicated/professional of a camera you want. As an aside, yes I do, bring several SD cards with me and a big stock pile (36+, I get 'em at BJ's) of AA batteries. Best of luck. 

[1995hoo]

I'll second 1995hoo's advice to start with a polnt-and-shoot. Another consideration is that a point-and-shoot will be smaller, and therefore easier to carry around, than a DSLR. Especially if you want to take lots of photos, to improve your photographic technique, more photos with a point-and-shoot will be better than fewer photos with a DSLR.

Many terrific photos posted on this forum were shot with point-and-shoots.

Oh yeah, I've looked at other enthusiast websites (such as Abandoned Ohio, Negative G, etc.) and I've noticed that those with DSLR's have a fanny pack or camera bag with them. Except those people upgraded over time (and most likely people on this forum too, people such as H.B. Elkins have been posting pictures since at least 1995).

I wasn't sure if the photos posted on the forum used point and shoots. They looked a lot like DSLR or mirrorless photos.

I have a DSLR, the long-discontinued Canon EOS 20D. I bought it in March 2005 ahead of a trip to Alaska that summer because I needed something more sophisticated than the Olympus point-and-shoot I had. I still have that camera and use it regularly. It was indispensable on our trip to New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona last year, especially for night-sky photography because you just don't get that same level of control with a point-and-shoot. I've occasionally thought about upgrading to a newer-generation Canon camera body since all my lenses and accessories would still work, but other more important expenses keep getting in the way (the house needed a new roof this spring; the car currently needs new tires; etc.) and the 20D still gets me some great pictures.

But I seldom use it in a moving car, in part because I'm normally driving and I don't like using two hands to twist the lens to zoom while I'm driving. Also, I'm not comfortable looking through the viewfinder while driving, so it's basically a crapshoot whether my photo gets what I want in it if I use the DSLR (mine does not allow use of the screen in lieu of the viewfinder). More often than not if I'm taking a picture from a moving car I use a point-and-shoot or my iPhone, both of which I can operate one-handed.

[hbelkins]

I started out using a Minolta film camera with a motor drive/autowinder and a, IIRC, 200 mm zoom lens. I had to have the film developed and prints made, and then had to scan them. I got halfway decent at taking pics while driving with that big bulky beast.

My first digital was a Sony Mavica, which saved photos on floppies. I've since been through two other digital cameras that were a little more higher-end than the standard point-and-shoot. I loved the Minolta, hated the Kodak, and really like the Canon I'm using now.

You can get a non-DSLR camera that has a lot of SLR features, such as manual focus, adjustable ISO/ASA, manual aperture and shutter speed settings, etc. I don't think wi-fi is a necessary feature on the camera. You can get storage cards with that feature if you really want it.

For long trips, it might be worthwhile to invest in an extra battery (if the camera uses a proprietary one) and a power inverter to plug into your lighter to keep the spare charged. I use a camera that is powered by AA batteries, and you can buy an Eveready fast charger with a car adapter to keep an extra set of batteries charged. I also have used cameras with DC power inputs and you can get car power adapters for them so you can use them on car power without draining the batteries.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

My current camera is a Canon ELPH 340 point-and-shoot that I bought in October 2014. I've been very pleased with it. I think at least one newer model of that line has come out since then. The viewer is large for a P-and-S which makes it easier to focus on details a bit, but the downside is that there is no manual viewer so if the screen ever breaks you're out of luck. It has a lot of features for different shots but I've found those features don't always work very well, especially the night shooting features.

[Takumi]

I use either a point & shoot (Canon SX150IS) or my phone for road photos. I have a DSLR (Canon EOS 50D) but I save it for car photoshoots.

[rickmastfan67]

I personally use a Panasonic Lumix ZS25.  Sturdy little P&S camera and fits perfectly in my pants pocket or coat pocket.  It's done well at sporting events (hockey games & NASCAR), and does a good job at taking pictures while on the road.  Only downside it that it doesn't do a good job at night, especially while in motion.  Still, if you don't want to break the bank on your first camera, you can't go wrong with the Lumix brand, as this is my 3rd one, and all 3 still work great.  Heck, sometimes I think my Lumix DMC-TZ3 takes the best road pictures of the 3.

[noelbotevera]

Yeah, looks like the majority of the forum uses P&S (which shocks me). I think I'll start off there before advancing to more advanced cameras.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Yeah, looks like the majority of the forum uses P&S (which shocks me). I think I'll start off there before advancing to more advanced cameras.

From a quality standpoint it may sound shocking, but (as hinted at above) using a DSLR effectively when on the road can be difficult and cumbersome unless you have a driver for you, which many of us don't consistently have that luxury.

[briantroutman]

Yeah, looks like the majority of the forum uses P&S (which shocks me). I think I'll start off there before advancing to more advanced cameras.

It's not like point and shoots and SLRs are on a linear spectrum where P&S equals low quality and SLR is better quality.

If you define photo "quality"  as producing a clear, sharp picture, a good point and shoot will give you excellent quality images. Choosing an SLR camera over a P&S isn't about "quality"  so much as it is creativity and artistry. The variety of lenses available for SLRs allow you to achieve different looks–like where a sign in the foreground is in sharp focus and the roadway in the distance is blurred out. And an SLR gives you better control over things like shutter speed, ISO, etc., allowing you to achieve effects such as nighttime traffic being a dim blur while the signs and road are bright and sharp.

But in order to do any of these creative things, you need to devote a lot of time and effort to learning the basics of photography and how all of your specific camera's features work. A DSLR may have a "full auto"  mode, but if you use that, you've basically wasted your money on a very expensive point and shoot.

Just look at serious photographers portfolios. Their photos don't look like "I was here and I took a picture"  –they're more like "Here's a moment in an alternate world forever frozen in time."  

My guess is that you want "I was here and I took a picture" .

[formulanone]

On the original points brought up by Noel, I would say the WiFi feature is quite overrated. It's nice if you just take a few shots at a time, but if you take dozens or even hundreds of shots, it's literally a dozen times faster to just plug in the SD card directly into your computer or whatever USB port has a slot for that card.

I'm in the DSLR camp, and it's definitely a point of no return...it's hard to go back to point-and-shoots, although they're far handier overall because they take up less space. They trade off full creativity for pretty all-round photography in most situations. Going full DSLR means a year of practice, practice, practice and being very careful with a $500 (or more) object that's a bit delicate.

[noelbotevera]

My guess is that you want "I was here and I took a picture" .

Not really sure though. I'm a newbie, so of course I'll have to start with my photos being like that. Until I learn post-processing and Photoshop (and photography) I can touch up photos a little just to make it look more like an alternate dimension.

[hbelkins]

On the original points brought up by Noel, I would say the WiFi feature is quite overrated. It's nice if you just take a few shots at a time, but if you take dozens or even hundreds of shots, it's literally a dozen times faster to just plug in the SD card directly into your computer or whatever USB port has a slot for that card.

The biggest advantage I see for having wi-fi is if you want to take a picture with your camera and immediately upload it to Facebook or elsewhere. To do that, you have to get it onto an Internet-enabled device.

I bought an Eye-Fi card to use with an iPhone and iPad, and immediately found that when you have your iDevice connected to the wi-fi card, you lose your data service. It's kind of a pain in the butt. An iPad camera connection kit works well, but you have to take the card out of the camera, and it won't work with an iPhone.

[1995hoo]

If you just want to take a picture and upload it immediately, using a phone with an app like Photobucket is probably the easiest way. Won't give the best results in terms of photo quality and the like, but on the other hand the phone cameras are getting pretty good these days.

[AsphaltPlanet]

I am in the SLR camp as well.

SLR's are definitely useful for the "I was here, so I took a picture" camp as well.  SLR's have larger sensors and come with a variety of varying lenses that provide superior optics to even good point and shoot style cameras.  Even just by the very fact that the lens diameter is likely considerably larger on an SLR compared to a point and shoot camera will mean that an SLR will capture a much better image than a P&S camera during the same light conditions.  Add to the fact that an SLR will typically allow for more customization once the user learns how to use it, and they really aren't comparable.

I'd have a hard time thinking that a modern P&S camera would really be a worthy investment vs. a standard phone camera these days.

[hbelkins]

I'd have a hard time thinking that a modern P&S camera would really be a worthy investment vs. a standard phone camera these days.

Two words -- optical zoom.

Phone cameras use digital zoom, which is definitely inferior.

[1995hoo]

I'd have a hard time thinking that a modern P&S camera would really be a worthy investment vs. a standard phone camera these days.

Two words -- optical zoom.

Phone cameras use digital zoom, which is definitely inferior.

Exactly. Using my phone (an iPhone 6) I'll get digital graininess zooming in even for what I consider close-range stuff, like taking pictures of the squirrels out on our deck. Neither the point-and-shoot nor the DSLR has that problem.