Beginner Upgrade

Gene Powell

Gene Powell

Suspended / Banned
Messages
29
Name
Gene
Edit My Images
No
Hi all I'm new to all this and have a fujifilm hs20exr and thinking of getting a slr but not sure what one to get looking at one for a beginner but nothing to expensive.
 
What is your budget and what do you enjoy photographing? Are you intending to edit your photographs or just use the JPEGs straight out of the camera?
 
A good used Nikon D 3300/3400 with kit lens would suit you a treat:nikon:
 
Pentax tend to put lots of features in their products, value for money.
 
Not sure why but I'm drawn to canon what would people recommended.
 
As i understand it Nikon APS-C cameras are better than the Canon equivalents. Also don't be put off buy the kit lenses, they're really not that bad.
 
Remember photographers make the pictures most modern cameras are very capable. Your first camera is unlikely to be your last unless photography is not for you. So don't be too worried about it being the perfect ideal purchase. Once you get to know your way around the camera you will learn what you want for your next camera purchase.
 
Mintchocs said:
Remember photographers make the pictures most modern cameras are very capable. Your first camera is unlikely to be your last unless photography is not for you. So don't be too worried about it being the perfect ideal purchase. Once you get to know your way around the camera you will learn what you want for your next camera purchase.
Click to expand...
This^

Your first proper camera is likely to be fairly temporary.

You'll either get hooked and replace it with something that fits your needs better or it'll barely get used.

It always sounds like such negative advice, but the agonising over a first camera is really wasted energy. There's no 'perfect' camera for you and hundreds that'll be perfectly fine.

And depending on your personality, buying an older mid range camera is a better investment that'll possibly last you a little longer. I personally get frustrated with entry level cameras with too many functions only available in menus.
 
Phil V said:
And depending on your personality, buying an older mid range camera is a better investment that'll possibly last you a little longer. I personally get frustrated with entry level cameras with too many functions only available in menus.
Click to expand...
I would definitely agree with this. I'm looking at buying an older second hand midrange camera over my entry level canon rebel. A couple of reasons why are, it's faster burst rate (which fits in more with what i like to photograph) and it's micro af adjustment (that my camera doesn't have). These may seem like small points, but when you're on a tight budget (which i am), buying a second hand lens that front or back focuses and having no way of adjusting it, is a right royal pain in the backside.
 
Been looking at the Canon 700d anyone use one and had a little look into the nikon 3300 and 3400 what would people recommended out of them 2.
 
I agree with Clint - have a look at a used Pentax . I'm biased because I use Pentax but as mentioned above they do tend to put a fair number of features in their cameras. However, there are very good camera from every maker and after you have decided the features you want (and how they are accessed) then it is often down to how the camera is in your hand - overall weight, size, balance, just general 'feel'.

Dave
 
I just had a peek at the Fuji you have. It's a reasonably useful looking mega zoom bridge camera, with pretty healthy 16Mpix sensor, and a fairly impressive ISO range.
Super-zoom compact / Bridge cameras, I find are often a little bit, 'eek'; the usually fail to offer the one advantage their small sensors offer most of, compact size; they don't slip into the pocket like propper compact, and can be as bulky as a DSLR, and in some ways more 'fiddly' to use. Then aimed at the non enthusiast user they tend to be cram packed with 'sales' features' rather than useful ones, and where they do have more useful functions they can be a bit more awkward to use.
Your fuji though, looks quite 'useful'. It has all the manual or semi manual modes by way of Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, Program and full manual, you'd have on a DSLR. also offers RAW format capture for post process fiddling.
It's integrated zoom lens has 'equivilent' field of view to 24 to 720mm on full frame... that's far more than most folk will ever need! Crikey, widest I ever had for my film cameras was 28mm, and the longest, 300mm.. and even with the all weight of a full metal camera and larger metal and glass lens, to help maker hand holding that bit more stable... I barely could!
I cant see what the fastest aperture setting is.. I doubt its particularly fast, but with such a small sensor, the real focal length will be pretty short anyway, and a large 'crop factor' giving a lot of that impressive zoom. Big aperture settings are good for two things; first letting in more light from dim scenes; on that, a slower aperture is probably no handicap over many DSLR's whose kit lenses are probably no faster. Other thing is the 'Depth of Field', how much of your scene is in focus in front of and behind the subject you focus on. short focal lengths, give a large Depth of Field, akin to using a smaller aperture; so the cameras a little limited for getting shallow focus effecs.
Other-wise, it isn't a DSLR, but it has an electronic view finder that mimics one for trickier composition conditions, and whilst it isn't a DSLR and theres a 'few' things a DSLR might do it cant or may struggle a bit to tackle.... it does look like it should come close...

What exactly do you want to do, this camera wont, or is making more difficult?

If you know that, then that would tell you what alternative camera would serve you better.

Otherwise, good chance you aren't getting as much out of this one as you could; and you'd get more from reading the user manual and messing with the menus, and taking more photo's, than you would getting a new camera to start over, and learn to get the most out of... and something much cheaper and simpler, like a tripod.. would actually be far more useful to improving your photography, than a new camera.

If you really want to step up to a DSLR, well, the entry level models these days are very very good for SLR newbies. I wouldn't spend a monstrous amount of money for a 'better' middle or high range 'enthusiast' model, just for the extra gadgets it boasts.

I have a Nikon D3200, I bought four years ago; which for the newby has the curious little feature of a 'tutorial' mode, which I'm a bit sanguine about; you'd probably be better off reading the manual, or a photography book, BUT, stuck on the spot could be handy, if you are still learning the ropes. I actually chose that model though as it was about the 'cheapest' Nikon DSLR in the shop.... I had decided to buy new, after quarter of a century of 2nd hand film cameras; and Nikon.. because Nikon & Cannon are the incumbents in the market; so there's most lenses and accessories available, and at more competitive prices for them, and more folk that use them, so can answer silly questions about them...... And the Nikon at the time has slightly better resolution, and felt more natural and intuitive to use, with a slightly 'simpler' more knob based rather than menu driven control system, but MOSTLY.. because of PRICE. Came with the 'kit' 18-55mm lens, which is is useful, if not inspiring, but more than adequete, for most even enthusiast users let alone newbies. Four years & I haven't seen need to swap it! Zoom range, equivilent of aprox 27- 80, is rather small compared to your bridge... but about what I had from the 'short' zoom for film camera. Adding a 55-300, later, gave me the same amount of zoom I had with film cameras, equivalent of 80-450, possibly a little more. Still less than you get from your fuji, but more than enough for most. Camera itself? It has useful selection of 'automatic' modes on the dial; has the semi-manual modes I'm used to from film cameras, and the manual one. It has a useful sensor resolution; chucking out digital files 4000x6000 pixels... which gives plenty of scope for digi-diddling; but, end of the day, I am not making many posters to stick on my wall from it, and most pictures have to be down sized to around 500x800 for web display!

I'm hardly a 'beginner', but seriously I have absolutely NO compunction to 'upgrade' from this camera! These entry level models offer so much straight off the shelf, they can take you an awful long way before you will start finding short-comings from them that can only be solved with a 'better' camera, IF you ever do!

So even IF you feel the compulsion to get a DSLR, rather than try and get more from your Fuji... you REALLY don't need to stress too much over the features and functions and specs and reviews. They are ALL almost certainly more than good enough; for most folk, and certainly a beginner.

And don't discount 2nd hand. even the older level DSLR's are more than good enough. I have the D3200, but I bought my daughter an older D3100, 2nd hand for her school photo courses; and it was 1/3 the price; and it's just as good in most ways! And I would probably have been just as happy with one when I got the D3200.

Go Nikon or Cannon for best support; and pick the one you can get the best deal on for price, that feels 'nice' to pick up, turn on, set and shoot. IF you really have to move on from the Fuji at all.
 
Gene Powell said:
Been looking at the Canon 700d anyone use one and had a little look into the nikon 3300 and 3400 what would people recommended out of them 2.
Click to expand...


They're both fine but the best thing to do is go and try them.

When I went to buy my first 'proper' camera I went to the shop certain I would get a Canon and then I walked out with a Nikon. The Nikon just felt better to me and I intuitively understood the controls, the Canon was more confusing and the build quality wasn't as good. It is more important to get a camera that you 'get' that agonising over the minimal differences in specs or performance.

Also look at Pentax, who might not be so popular on here but their cameras are fantastic value for money, you often get features such as weather sealing that cost a lot more on Canon or Nikon.
 
Last edited:
I was using My D3300 this morning, with the kit lens. Even at higher ISO numbers, I was getting pretty good images.
 
We are all different so what suits one doesn't suit another. So get a short list and go try them out make it suits you.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
I just had a peek at the Fuji you have. It's a reasonably useful looking mega zoom bridge camera, with pretty healthy 16Mpix sensor, and a fairly impressive ISO range.
Super-zoom compact / Bridge cameras, I find are often a little bit, 'eek'; the usually fail to offer the one advantage their small sensors offer most of, compact size; they don't slip into the pocket like propper compact, and can be as bulky as a DSLR, and in some ways more 'fiddly' to use. Then aimed at the non enthusiast user they tend to be cram packed with 'sales' features' rather than useful ones, and where they do have more useful functions they can be a bit more awkward to use.
Your fuji though, looks quite 'useful'. It has all the manual or semi manual modes by way of Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, Program and full manual, you'd have on a DSLR. also offers RAW format capture for post process fiddling.
It's integrated zoom lens has 'equivilent' field of view to 24 to 720mm on full frame... that's far more than most folk will ever need! Crikey, widest I ever had for my film cameras was 28mm, and the longest, 300mm.. and even with the all weight of a full metal camera and larger metal and glass lens, to help maker hand holding that bit more stable... I barely could!
I cant see what the fastest aperture setting is.. I doubt its particularly fast, but with such a small sensor, the real focal length will be pretty short anyway, and a large 'crop factor' giving a lot of that impressive zoom. Big aperture settings are good for two things; first letting in more light from dim scenes; on that, a slower aperture is probably no handicap over many DSLR's whose kit lenses are probably no faster. Other thing is the 'Depth of Field', how much of your scene is in focus in front of and behind the subject you focus on. short focal lengths, give a large Depth of Field, akin to using a smaller aperture; so the cameras a little limited for getting shallow focus effecs.
Other-wise, it isn't a DSLR, but it has an electronic view finder that mimics one for trickier composition conditions, and whilst it isn't a DSLR and theres a 'few' things a DSLR might do it cant or may struggle a bit to tackle.... it does look like it should come close...

What exactly do you want to do, this camera wont, or is making more difficult?

If you know that, then that would tell you what alternative camera would serve you better.

Otherwise, good chance you aren't getting as much out of this one as you could; and you'd get more from reading the user manual and messing with the menus, and taking more photo's, than you would getting a new camera to start over, and learn to get the most out of... and something much cheaper and simpler, like a tripod.. would actually be far more useful to improving your photography, than a new camera.

If you really want to step up to a DSLR, well, the entry level models these days are very very good for SLR newbies. I wouldn't spend a monstrous amount of money for a 'better' middle or high range 'enthusiast' model, just for the extra gadgets it boasts.

I have a Nikon D3200, I bought four years ago; which for the newby has the curious little feature of a 'tutorial' mode, which I'm a bit sanguine about; you'd probably be better off reading the manual, or a photography book, BUT, stuck on the spot could be handy, if you are still learning the ropes. I actually chose that model though as it was about the 'cheapest' Nikon DSLR in the shop.... I had decided to buy new, after quarter of a century of 2nd hand film cameras; and Nikon.. because Nikon & Cannon are the incumbents in the market; so there's most lenses and accessories available, and at more competitive prices for them, and more folk that use them, so can answer silly questions about them...... And the Nikon at the time has slightly better resolution, and felt more natural and intuitive to use, with a slightly 'simpler' more knob based rather than menu driven control system, but MOSTLY.. because of PRICE. Came with the 'kit' 18-55mm lens, which is is useful, if not inspiring, but more than adequete, for most even enthusiast users let alone newbies. Four years & I haven't seen need to swap it! Zoom range, equivilent of aprox 27- 80, is rather small compared to your bridge... but about what I had from the 'short' zoom for film camera. Adding a 55-300, later, gave me the same amount of zoom I had with film cameras, equivalent of 80-450, possibly a little more. Still less than you get from your fuji, but more than enough for most. Camera itself? It has useful selection of 'automatic' modes on the dial; has the semi-manual modes I'm used to from film cameras, and the manual one. It has a useful sensor resolution; chucking out digital files 4000x6000 pixels... which gives plenty of scope for digi-diddling; but, end of the day, I am not making many posters to stick on my wall from it, and most pictures have to be down sized to around 500x800 for web display!

I'm hardly a 'beginner', but seriously I have absolutely NO compunction to 'upgrade' from this camera! These entry level models offer so much straight off the shelf, they can take you an awful long way before you will start finding short-comings from them that can only be solved with a 'better' camera, IF you ever do!

So even IF you feel the compulsion to get a DSLR, rather than try and get more from your Fuji... you REALLY don't need to stress too much over the features and functions and specs and reviews. They are ALL almost certainly more than good enough; for most folk, and certainly a beginner.

And don't discount 2nd hand. even the older level DSLR's are more than good enough. I have the D3200, but I bought my daughter an older D3100, 2nd hand for her school photo courses; and it was 1/3 the price; and it's just as good in most ways! And I would probably have been just as happy with one when I got the D3200.

Go Nikon or Cannon for best support; and pick the one you can get the best deal on for price, that feels 'nice' to pick up, turn on, set and shoot. IF you really have to move on from the Fuji at all.
Click to expand...
Thanks Mike for this it's really made me think about keeping hold of what I got and work with it more getting used to how things work as I'm a complete amateur but just feel I won't get good pictures from the camera is have.
 
Gene Powell said:
Thanks Mike for this it's really made me think about keeping hold of what I got and work with it more getting used to how things work as I'm a complete amateur but just feel I won't get good pictures from the camera is have.
Click to expand...
Answering another post the subject of UWA lenses for Landscapes, earlier, had me doing a little googling, as I recalled, Ansel Adams used some very primitive cameras and many of his most dramatic landscapes were taken not with wide angle lenses but tele-photo's; but chucked up so many often witty quotes, supporting the adage that it's better photographers that take better photo's, not better cameras.
With a little know how and a little inspiration, you will get good photo's, regardless of the camera; a better camera might help you make them a little better, if you apply that know how and inspiration, but you have to have the inspiration & know how fist.
Buy a tripod, and read the manual to find out how to use the self timer; then spend the chage treating yourself to some day trips to go 'play'... have fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top