What's a good advanced point-and-shoot/beginner digital SLR camera??

[Femphysiquefan]

This is for all the many physique photographers here on Gene's board. I am looking to upgrade from a simple point-and-shoot to an advanced point-and-shoot or digital SLR camera, but I don't have a clue where to look or what some of the better brand names are. From your experience, what do you recommend as a relatively good advanced point-and-shoot or beginner digital SLR camera for someone who is beginning to seriously consider going into physique photography, and why? The more opinions, the better. In terms of price I am looking in the range of $500-$1,000.

[pict]

I have been researching the heck out of this for the past year because I, too, am looking to upgrade.
First, you have to decide what you really want. Do you want the ease of a point and shoot, or do you want the versatility and higher quality images of an SLR? Unless you are really, really picky, a high end point and shoot would probably work for you. But if you are really, really picky, the pix you get from a SLR will have fewer "defects" (like pixelization in the dark parts of the photo or in larger blow-ups). But changing lens on an SLR can be a hastle. And SLRs are subject to getting dust on the sensor.
I have been waiting for somebody to make a point and shoot with the larger "SLR sized" sensor AND a relatively long lens AND image stabilization. But it hasn't happened and probably won't.
I am VERY CLOSE to purchasing an Olympus. The Olympus dust reduction system is far superior to all the others. You can get an olympus image stabilized body and 2 decent kit lenses for $900. But all the manufacturers have their strong points.
I recommend going to this site:
dpreview.com

I think they have a page where you can answer questions about what you are looking for and then be directed to the cameras most closely meeting your requirements. Plus, there is no doubt more info available on that site than you could possibly want.
Happy hunting/shooting.

[TomNine]

Jeremy,

If you aspire to getting the kind of quality pros like GeneX or Dan Ray get a point and shoot will always be disappointing, but $1000 worth of DSLR gear won't be much more satisfying.

If you are talking about a one-time investment you hope will last a few years, a good point and shoot will probably be better for you. Easier to learn, no worries about changing lenses, maybe the ability to shoot video clips if you want. Elite photographers will scoff at the idea, but taking pictures should be about having fun and not worrying about F stops, whatever they are.

If you are interested in really diving into the DSLR world, treat that first $1000 as buying into a system with no end of possibilities. I suggest starting off with an entry level body (i.e. one of the cheaper, possibly older models) and put most of your money into a good lens, and maybe a good flash if you think you will need one. Don't be distracted by high megapixel counts unless you plan to make large prints.

Canon or Nikon are the major brands, but I wouldn't ignore the other brands. I am mostly happy with my decision to go with the Sony DSLR, though the high cost of top-end lenses was a problem I didn't anticipate at first.

There are plenty of online resources to help you with your decision, and most of what is out there will probably be okay for you, at least to continue learning with.

[mark000]

I agree with Tom that Canon and Nikon are the leading brands to look at first, but disagree about looking at older models.

The technology has been improving rapidly, there are new low end DSLRs in both lines that offer a lot of camera for around $500 -1200, including an autofocus midrange zoom lens.
Such prices are available from good reputable discount retailers, like J&R
http://www.jr.com/JRSectionView.process?Section_Path=/Cameras_and_Optics/

When I started the transition to digital, I learned the hard way that the BIG problem with point and shoots is lag between pushing the button and the camera taking the picture, from slow autofocus and shutter. That made the camera I got (about 4 years ago) almost useless for shooting BB shows on stage. I don't know whether that problem has been corrected in new models.

The big advantage of P&S is that they are much smaller and lighter, easier to carry around even when you have no specific plan to use it.

DSLRs do not have the shutter lag problem - the Nikons are wicked fast; I have heard that the canons are even faster.

The main problem with DSLRs is the learning curve - there are a lot of settings to learn. I got mine in 2004 and am still learning.

Two important issues to learn are color balance (easy to set with the menu) and exposure compensation, especially for backlighting, which even some experienced photographers neglect.

Changing lenses is not a big issue, you only need two - a telephoto for stage shows and a midrange to wideangle zoom for everything else. DSLRs are usually sold with a midrange zoom. The one that came with my Nikon D-70 is excellent.

Image stabilization, which goes by various names, is desirable especially for a telephoto, but expensive.

[ibarramedia]

Man, for absolute beginner point and shoot, I would just go with a Canon Powershot SD1000 Digital Elph.

[Pandmoanium]

Mark absolutely hit the nail on the head. I was told by more than one industry pro that there are 2 cameras: Nikon & Canon. Any other and your just playing around.

I switched from a fairly high end Olympus point and shoot straight into a Nikon D200 and yes the learning curve is and can be quite severe, but the results have been well worth the effort and expense.

As for the expense, its an expensive hobby but if you want memorable photos instead of just nice snapshots, invest the time and money. My recommendation would be the Nikon line simply because of the interchangable lenses, with the exception of the D40. All in all, a good camera system.

[mark000]

Camera lines inadequate for a pro may be OK for an amateur, but I only know about Nikons.

The Nikon D40 is the bottom of the DSLR line. It is probably enough camera for a beginner or intermediate. For $660 at J&R, you get a Nikon 18-55mm midrange zoom lens.

For someone who definitely plans to get into photography and is willing to spend some time learning, the D80 looks to me like a very good package.

J&R now offers the D80 on sale for $1150, includes a zoom lens with a range of 18-135mm f 3.5-5.6 focal length. That is the equivalent of about 27-200mm for a 35mm film camera. In other words, it goes from a moderate wideangle to typical telephoto, enough to shoot BBs on stage from the paying seats, so it would save you the price of a telephoto zoom.

However, before buying, it is important to check who made the included lens. The J&R website does NOT say that it is a Nikon lens. If it is from some other manufacturer, it may not be as good a deal.

But J&R offers the D80 body only on sale for $875, which is definitely a bargain. You can then get one or more lenses separately to meet your needs, after checking product reviews and asking around.

http://dpreview.com/

The Nikon 18-70mm zoom that came with my D70 that I bought at J&R 3 years ago is a sweet lens. It came (as I recall) with a good battery and charger, and a small memory card. The D80 kit on offer includes a battery and charger, and minor accessories like a strap and lenscaps.

There may be some small extra charges for taxes and shipping. More important, you should get an extra battery, a large capacity memory card (256 Meg or more) and a carrying case.

[Tre]

From your experience, what do you recommend as a relatively good advanced point-and-shoot or beginner digital SLR camera for someone who is beginning to seriously consider going into physique photography...
Why?

As a friend, I would discourage anyone who was even thinking about it.

If you must, though, grab a small point-and-shoot and spend some time teaching yourself the basics. Any camera, any brand will do. I wouldn't spend more than about $300-350.

[mark000]

...level of commitment and disposable income.

Tre is probably right for a person of average income who is *considering* getting into photography.

For someone with considerable income, or who has definitely decided to get into photography, it can make sense to invest in a good camera.

That said, as the technology advances, moderate price cameras have a lot of capability.

But for sports photography, such as BBers on stage, speed is critical. Digital point-and-shoot cameras in the $300 price range may have shutters too slow to get the shot during the pose. I don't know whether that is still true, but it was 4 years ago. For other purposes they can do OK.

[fivegrand]

From your experience, what do you recommend as a relatively good advanced point-and-shoot or beginner digital SLR camera for someone who is beginning to seriously consider going into physique photography, and why?


None of them...NONE.

If you really truly are going to "seriously consider going into physique photography" the FIRST thing you need to do is learn photography.

My recommendation is to buy the cheapest 35mm film body in Nikon F mount or Canon EF/EFS mount that has a sync terminal.

[Doug Smith]

Man, for absolute beginner point and shoot, I would just go with a Canon Powershot SD1000 Digital Elph.

I agree with Ibarra here, although I would not suggest it if one is serious about going into physique photography.

As long as you don't zoom there is minimal shutter lag even in dim lighting, and in good lighting the photo quality (again unzoomed ) is as good a much more expensive DSLR cameras including in the Canon line. Once you downsize the photos to post on the web you will not see a difference.

Also it has the new DigicIII chip which provides far superior evaluative exposure calculations and automatic white balance than the DigicII or any other Canon chip. It is hard to take a 'bad shot', which is surprisingly easy with a higher end DSLR. (in the next generation models the DigicIII chip will also allow the ISO on the detector to vary per pixel potentially eliminating the background blow out problem). Also the 'face detect' feature actually works, which allows you to shoot a subject off center without having to pre focus, or get the best average focus with multiple subjects

Despite these pluses, the huge downside is that if you pull a little point and shoot out it is unlikely anyone would ever take you seriously as a photographer, especially the models! Secondarily you will have less creative control over your shots (you cannot manually set Fstop, shutter speed, and ISO) , although the importance of that depends on your target audience. Thirdly even with the high ISO feature (due to the new chip's noise reduction capability) the sensitivity is much less than with a big lens at a low F-Stop, making stage shots difficult.

So in summary, as much as I enjoy my SD 1000, I would recommend listening to the experts who have posted here with advice regarding DSLRs.

Best

Doug

[Tre]

I agree with Ibarra here, although I would not suggest it if one is serious about going into physique photography.

I would suggest something else entirely, something that has nothing to do with photography and everything to do with therapy.