OT: Calling all photography enthusiasts

[William]

I know there are some photography enthusiasts on the forum and thought maybe you folks could point us in the right direction. Our daughter has been interested in photography for a number of years now and she does seem to have an eye for it. We originally bought her a cheap digital for her to use .... just to see if it was a passing interest and also for us to see how she would take care of it. She's still very interested in photography and she's done a great job taking care of the camera. To be honest though, she takes great photos, her camera doesn't. I let her use our Canon Power Shot A590 sometimes which is better than the one she has but I think it might be time to get her a step up. Looking at the current Nikon, Pentax etc... offerings out there they certainly are not cheap. For good reason I'm sure. I've never really been into photography other than just "having a camera" so I don't know much about what's considered good or bad. I was wondering if you folks might have some suggestions as to good models to look for and if you might know of some places to find decent used camera equipment?






Thanks!
William

[fuzzalow]

Having a sense for composition, interest and space is the crucial first step. That's covered.

But using what I guess is a point 'n' shoot, what is not covered is control. If there are point 'n' shoots that allow for choosing override control priority of aperture or shutter, that might be enough.

A digital SLR offers the most control and configurabilty and can be bought very cheaply in the used market. Doesn't include the added expense of the lense but you don't need a lot of lenses - a 28mm equivalent will do.

Look at the used camera dept at B&H http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7c0&ci=15488&N=4294182649&srtclk=sort

[Nooch]

William, I might be replacing my original digital rebel (5.2 mp, i believe) in the near future -- it's been a real solid workhorse since about 2003-2004..

Otherwise, you could teach her the fine art of film (although it's dying/dead) and score a pretty great SLR on ebay for about $30...

[victoryfactory]

What fuzzalow said.

I would add:
If she decides to go with an SLR for the extra exposure control, she will
have to deal with the extra size and weight too.
On the positive side, there is a HUGE difference viewing and composing through
an SLR vs a point and shoot. You can really see your image instead of guessing what it will look like or if it's in focus.
On the minus side, she will have to carry it in a separate shoulder bag.

If she goes this way, I would recommend a zoom lense around 24-105 or 28-200 (Equivalent)

Most really good photographers get that way after using SLR's that allow complete
exposure control. Once they learn the game, they can get really good stuff out
of a point and shoot too, because they understand what they want and how
to "fool" the automatic camera into giving them what they want.

If she doesn't like the size/weight aspect of the SLR there are plenty of small cameras
today that offer manual modes and raw capture enough for any pro to get great images, (like Panasonic GF1 or GF3 and Canon s90,s95 etc.)
and still be able to slip the thing in their pocket.
The only thing you are giving up here is that sweet SLR viewfinder and the
big fast glass that's available (Also the full frame cameras where a 50mm lens
is a 50mm lens)
Ultimately, any really good photographer can take great photos with either
type of camera once they know about the basics of exposure, depth of field
and composition.
Most expert photographers have both types of camera for different shoots.

sorry, It's a big subject

VF

[charliedid]

What sort of photography is she into? Is she going to take any classes etc?

What sort of budget?

[veloduffer]

I would recommend a used DSLR from either Nikon or Canon. Even the low end DSLRs take terrific pictures in the "right" hands - the camera isn't the constraint on a good photographer.

Moreover, both systems have plenty lens choices in the new and used market. I am a long time Nikon user, so I only know their lineup. I think a used D40, D200 or D300 with a 35mm lens (equivalent to a 50mm lens on a full frame) would be a perfect setup to learn. A good place to buy is KEH (http://www.keh.com/), where a lot pros buy their used equipment. Similarly with B&H and Adorama.

I would start her with a prime lens rather than a zoom lens. Zoom lenses make starting photographers lazy - they should move their feet and learn to bend or climb to get different perspectives. Henri Cartier Bresson made some of the world's most iconic photos with only a 50mm lens. Also, the 50mm lens' perspective is closest to the human eye's perspective.

For photography tips/advice, check these sites:

www.nikoncafe.com - very helpful and can ask any question - they welcome newbies and you don't have to own a Nikon
http://mansurovs.com/
bythom.com
kenrockwell.com

[thwart]

Paging Ray...

[deechee]

VF makes a good point, what does your daughter want? and how old is she?

Digital SLRs are incredible tools and I would learn about building a system from photo.net (http://photo.net/equipment/building-a-digital-slr-system/). Getting a camera from the major two, Canon and Nikon will allow you to rent lenses so your daughter can learn about the difference perspectives. That's my main reason for owning a Canon. That said, the ability to have instant feedback and the near limitless memory will allow her to take pictures and experiment with exposure in a way most of us who learned with film didn't. For that reason alone I would not bother with a film SLR.

BUT, if she's young and has small hands, is intimidated by the large size of an SLR, there is a growing selection of mirror-less cameras with a lot of manual controls and lens selection. Nikon J (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikonv1j1/), Canon M (http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/slrs/canon_eosm), Olympus PEN (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/olympus_e_pl-1_review.html), Pentax Q (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentaxQ/), and there are others...

And something she should have in her bag: Kodak Photoguide (http://www.amazon.com/Kodak-Professional-Photoguide-Debbie-Cohen/dp/0879857595/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346420057&sr=1-1&keywords=kodak+photoguide). Seems to be out of print? but I'm sure you can find used copies.
No reason to not think outside the box. And as others have said, the used market is fantastic. I love keh.com

[pmac]

Lots of good advice already. One big question is her age, and how comfortable it's going to be holding some big, heavy camera. If she's seriously engaged in photography, I think your best bet is something where she has lots of creative control. In the past this has meant (within reason) an SLR or now DSLR. But, a very strong case can be made that micro4/3 cameras offer almost the same level of image quality and no less creative control. A big advantage is that these are substantially smaller and lighter. New models appear at a rapid pace, meaning that slightly older versions can be had new for much less than they originally cost, and used for even less. The Panasonic G series are excellent, and the GH2 is about to replaced by an update and so the price is dropping. Olympus m4/3 have one notable advantage, in body image stabilization, and the latest model, the OM-D, is outstanding (but probably more than you want to spend). The lower Olympus models are (to me) less appealing than the lower Panasonic ones, because they have no viewfinder and you have to rely on the LCD on the back of the camera or an add-on viewfinder (works fine, seems prone to damage because it sticks out from the camera body and is connected via the flash mount).

I suggest taking her to a photography store and holding the DSLRs and the micro4/3 models to see what seems comfortable.

[William]

I appreciate all of your help!:cool:

I'll be in and out today so I can't be on long but I'll keep checking in. Our daughter is twelve and so far she has had no formal photography classes...though I foresee them in the future. She just seems to have a knack for getting good composition in her photos. She keeps showing me adds for large DSLR type cameras but I don't know them from adam so I thought I should ask some folks who are edumacated.;)




Thanks again!
William

[Andrewlcox]

My friend is a budding photographer and made an interesting discovery. As he calls it "glass" meaning buy the best lens for the job. He brags about this new one he bought recently. It's a fixed lens with a huge piece of glass and a very low F stop. He's right, it can make a crappy lighting situation look like you are under the sun so to speak.

Basically invest in expensive lenses to take the guesswork out of it.

Hope that doesn't muddy the waters.

[gavingould]

second what lot of others have said re: classes etc.
they're also right about SLRs/lenses being bulky/heavy - especially when you get to the high-end stuff (funny how in the bike world it's the opposite, and man I would kill for a lightweight pro camera system)

as far as buying... a low-end (read: cheap) DSLR is a good entry point. the Canon Rebel series is a good place to start. they're small-ish and fairly light, but have pretty much everything you'd need as far as features.

in digital there's something newer/better at same or lower price every year anyway, so if it gets 'outgrown' fairly quickly, there's an upgrade path.
i'd recommend starting with a 50mm f/1.8 lens. ~$120 new, decent quality, forces the user to learn the more important stuff - control, composition, etc.

a good source of used items is KEH.com, there are also plenty of forums out there - i've bought/sold on the fredmiranda.com forums.

like any good hobby, photography can be a lifelong passion, and for some a career. i freelanced for a few years (still do here and there) but the hustle and "people factor" wasn't for me.

camera bodies come and go pretty quickly in the digital age, but the good lenses stick around a lot longer. that's where you'll want to do the bulk of your investment/system building.

[victoryfactory]

As Deechee and Pmack mentioned,
Micro 4/3 is a great small full function replaceable lens system
I have the Panasonic GF-1. I hardly ever bring my Canon anymore
on most trips.

However, I still have not seen a micro 4/3 system with a decent viewfinder.
Supposedly Panasonic has an improved one that is a ~250. option on the new
GF-3 (doesnt fit on the GF-1) but those things make the camera a little clumsy
to slip into a bag.

VF

[Jaq]

Aside from the great suggestions here, you might PM False Aest; I think his art is all about photography.

[jischr]

If she's 12 I'd consider something like the Nikon S9200. It has good optics, an 18X tele, and options to help her grow through trial and error without the expense or bulk of a DSLR. She can put it in her hoodie pocket, backpack or purse and the snatchers of the world won't know its there until she takes it out to use. She could also take video with it which could point her in a whole new direction.

My other camera is a Nikon D-40 with a couple of their mid-range lens, I think the industry calls them pro-sumer. The mid range glass typically give 90% of the pro glass optics but not the durability someone taking 10,000 shots a year needs. Kinda like buying 105 or Ultegra instead of Dura Ace. I suggest staying away from the cheap consumer glass if/when you go DSLR. It will only frustrate her.

[tuxbailey]

Although I haven't used them, I would get her a m4/3 system like others mentioned.

Good image quality, good choice in lens options.

Get one of the Panasonic G series and a prime lens to start (or a zoom.)

This might work.

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-GF3CK-Digital-Camera-Pancake/dp/B0054YVA8S/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1346426205&sr=8-9&keywords=panasonic+gx1

[572cv]

As to calling Ray, +1.

beyond that, the next step up from the consumer level cameras wants to include a larger sensor size. The smallest of these are the Micro 4/3 cameras from Panasonic and Olympus mostly but I think also Nikon, and the Canon S90-95-100 series. My S90 was (before being ripped off) a fabulous portable camera, with some good controls and features. As a specific example, my working camera is an Olympus EPL-1. It has interchangeable lenses, a variety of settings, fully controllable and (Key Feature for me), as an accessory, an electronic viewfinder. It is kinda cheap looking, really, and doesn't have the beautiful assembly of a Nikon or the Canon, but the functional aspects, and the output, are really good. It is relatively light and compact. The subsequent generations of this line appear to be even better. My 2 cents. Good luck!

[victoryfactory]

I like the Panasonic GF-1 It's sort of like a poor man's Digital Leica
Similar hand feel.
Kind of reminds me of the old (film) Minolta CL a joint venture with Leica which
accepted Leica M lenses.

The GF series also will accept Leica M lenses with an adapter, haven't tried that
Apparently there is some input from Leica in the design of the Panasonic
micro 4/3 lenses too. They do look and feel a little like M lenses.

Sorry for the drift.

VF

[jtakeda]

Before spending the big bucks on a Leica, Mamiya or something of the ilk I would try buying a nice mid range camera to test out how she likes it.

The Nikon D90 (which I believe to be the digital version of the N90) would be a fantastic option.

I currently shoot a 35mm N90 when I don't want to worry about babying a camera. (Think lock up bike vs. race bike) They're relatively cheap, have tons of features and take good pictures.

I haven't really looked into the D90 but I got my N90 a couple years ago for really cheap. I believe the body and a 1:1.8 lens was $60?

I wouldn't be surprised if D90s were around the same price range and the great thing is you can always upgrade to something nicer if she sticks with the hobby.

[victoryfactory]

Before spending the big bucks on a Leica, Mamiya or something of the ilk I would try buying a nice mid range camera to test out how she likes it..

A Leica M9 with 3 lenses is only around 15K

a bargain, yo

[Ray]

Sorry, folks, I was riding and didn't get the page.... :cool:

For a 12 year old, I'd personally stay away from a DSLR. Unless she's hoping to shoot hard core action (like shooting sports for her school newspaper or something, but that's probably at least a few years away), a DSLR is overkill and its big and heavy enough that it could be a real turn-off for her. And there are plenty of smaller, less obtrusive cameras that will give her all the controls she'll need to grow into it.

The next question is does she care (yet) about shooting in really low light? If so, I'd recommend an interchangeable lens camera like an m43 camera or a Sony Nex which will allow her to use a zoom lens but also to get one or two faster "prime" lenses that do not zoom but are higher quality and will let more light into the camera, so you can shoot in lower light without a flash. Also, the better ones have sensors that are very close to DSLRs now in terms of low light sensitivity. I'm more partial to the m43 cameras just because their controls are generally a little nicer than Sony's Nex line (except for the most expensive Nex cameras which are quite nice). Something like a Panasonic G3 could be a really good place to start - its kind of like a mini-DSLR, it has a very nice viewfinder (as well as an articulating screen), its sensor is very very good in low light, and it can take about a zillion different lenses if she really wants to grow with it. And they're pretty cheap right now because they're being replaced by the G5 so really good deals are available on the G3. They're still retailing for $500 with a typical kit zoom lens, but they're showing up closer to $400 if you keep your eyes open. If she really gets into it, I'd consider getting a good fast prime lens like a Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens which is probably another $300-350, which sounds like a huge amount but in the world of quality lenses, is very very reasonable.

The other thing to consider is one of the really really fine compact cameras that are available today. The best one out there at the moment is the Sony RX100 which has amazing image quality for a little camera and has loads of controls, but is expensive at $650. And because its soooo small, I don't find its controls to be nearly as accessible or useful as others, but for 12 year old hands, it might be great. Two other great options are the Panasonic LX7 and Fuji X10, both in the $500 range. The LX7 isn't AS good in low light as an m43 camera or as the Sony RX100, but its not bad at all. It handles ISOs of up to about 800-1000 quite well and its lens is very fast, with apertures that range from f1.4 at the wide angle end of the zoom to f2.3 at the telephoto end. Which is amazingly fast for a compact. So the lens lets in a LOT of light to go along with a reasonably good sensor. This camera has the best set of controls I've ever seen on a compact and its just large enough to feel like a real CAMERA, rather than a point and shoot that just happens to produce really good images. I think it would be a wonderful camera for someone just really learning the art/craft of photography. It has great auto focus, it has very useful manual focus, it has an aperture ring on the front like old time cameras, which are really nice. It has a multi-aspect sensor that would allow her to experiment with different formats (4x3, 3x2, 16x9, etc) and it has a nice wide 24mm wide angle. The ONLY thing you don't really get with these compacts is really narrow depth of field (where the subject is in focus and everything behind it is out of focus) which can be used to great artistic effect. None of these tiny cameras really does that very well except for extreme close up work. The LX7 with its f1.4 lens does it as well as any and better than most, but it won't compare with a larger sensor camera in this respect.

I have a Sony RX100 because I'm a low light junkie, but if I wasn't I'd get the LX7 - its just a tremendously fun camera to use and would be incredible to learn on. If $500 is too steep, the LX5 can be found for $350 and its almost equally good - not quite as good in low light, a slower lens, and the controls aren't as nice, but it'll produce equally good images in decent light.

If she really has her eye on something, though, and its within your price range, I'd go that way because if she's turned on by some aspect of a camera, she'll get into using it more and will have more fun with it and ultimately find out how into the whole thing she is.

-Ray

[William]

Wow! Lots of great info, thank you for sharing.:cool: I'm going to have to sift through it all and come up with choice. Oh yeah, Our daughter thanks you all as well!:)





William

[mvrider]

Looking at the current Nikon, Pentax etc... offerings out there they certainly are not cheap. For good reason I'm sure.

Just got back from vacation, and I enjoyed reading the suggestions so far.

Used to be that I thought camera equipment was expensive. And it is... you can spend unlimited amounts on equipment with rapidly diminishing return (sound familiar?). However, when you compare that to the bikes that are discussed on this forum, cameras are inexpensive, incredibly capable, mass-produced tools. When you consider what a brand-new $500 DSLR kit can do in the right hands, it is astonishing. Over the past few years I've spent waaaay more on bikes than I have on a dozen or so cameras over the past 25 years.

I've owned Nikon and Canon DSLRs, and the very fine Panasonic Lumix LX5 high-end point & shoot. All are very capable of producing fine images.

However, just as with cycling, the real difference lies with the user of the tool, not the tool itself. Composition is a funny thing: there is both an innate and a learned component. For myself, the biggest impact to my photography came not from books, forums, web sites, or even weekend seminars, but a couple of real, semester-long classes, taught at a community college. The field assignments and instructor critique were essential to shaping my way of seeing the world.

My suggestions would be to follow the advice above on equipment, but to not stop there. Seek out the yearbook or school newspaper. Take her to museums and galleries. Sign her up for an after-school class. The equipment and technique will become second-nature, so that she can develop her creative and story-telling side.

Remember that the process of photography only begins with the camera. The seminal Ansel Adams series contained 3 volumes: (1) The Camera & Lens, (2) The Negative, (3) The Print. In the digital world, (1) & (2) are combined, and (3) is realized on a computer. So, investment and training in a computer and software would be the next logical step. Again, much cheaper than bikes.

Oh, a final bit of equipment advice: DON'T buy a photo printer. Costco makes superior, longer-lasting prints at lower cost. Proper use of a monitor color calibrator takes the guess-work out of the process.

Finally: make sure she has fun!

[Kevan]

Hey William, a couple thoughts:

1. I recommend the Canon G Series of camera. Good all rounder, but not particularly good in overly dim light or fast action (sports). They have awesome zooms and micro capacity though. Where the camera shines..it shines.

2. Adobe Elements for edit processing of images. This is important and probably worth 30-40% the entire investment. The editing does help the image. Do enough editing...you learn to become a better photographer so you don't have to do so much editing. This aspect to photography is important and self-teaches the individual all aspects in composition and camera setup. Oh, buy a couple books in support of Elements.

3. Open a Flickr account for managing images. There are safety controls available and this enables your daughter to share her efforts.

Good luck!

[malcolm]

If you decide to do the DSLR route I would lean toward nikon primarily with canon as a close second and probably wouldn't consider others, although I have an olympus I love. The reason I say that is because unless things have changed there is a ton of nikon glass avail used over various price ranges. I think canon is close but nikon made several levels of lenses that were fairly interchangeable. My olympus for example has limited availability or at least it did last time I looked and it is all very high end. It's been several years since I looked at this stuff, so grain of salt.

[eippo1]

I love my Dslr, but one thing I'll always say is that you tend to learn a lot more using a full manual film camera. I learned a ton using a Minolta that is as old as I am when I was in my teens. I still use it from time to time mostly for b & w stuff. They're pretty easy to find on the cheap and the negatives can be easily scanned after being developed.

[malcolm]

William if she wants a manual 35mm film camera, I think I've got an olympus OM-2 lying around somewhere, that if I can find, she can have for shipping. I'm sure it will need a battery. It was their top of the line camera 30 or so years ago. No extra glass just the 50mm it came with

[djg]

Sorry, folks, I was riding and didn't get the page.... :cool:

For a 12 year old, I'd personally stay away from a DSLR. Unless she's hoping to shoot hard core action (like shooting sports for her school newspaper or something, but that's probably at least a few years away), a DSLR is overkill and its big and heavy enough that it could be a real turn-off for her. And there are plenty of smaller, less obtrusive cameras that will give her all the controls she'll need to grow into it.

The next question is does she care (yet) about shooting in really low light? If so, I'd recommend an interchangeable lens camera like an m43 camera or a Sony Nex which will allow her to use a zoom lens but also to get one or two faster "prime" lenses that do not zoom but are higher quality and will let more light into the camera, so you can shoot in lower light without a flash. Also, the better ones have sensors that are very close to DSLRs now in terms of low light sensitivity. I'm more partial to the m43 cameras just because their controls are generally a little nicer than Sony's Nex line (except for the most expensive Nex cameras which are quite nice). Something like a Panasonic G3 could be a really good place to start - its kind of like a mini-DSLR, it has a very nice viewfinder (as well as an articulating screen), its sensor is very very good in low light, and it can take about a zillion different lenses if she really wants to grow with it. And they're pretty cheap right now because they're being replaced by the G5 so really good deals are available on the G3. They're still retailing for $500 with a typical kit zoom lens, but they're showing up closer to $400 if you keep your eyes open. If she really gets into it, I'd consider getting a good fast prime lens like a Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens which is probably another $300-350, which sounds like a huge amount but in the world of quality lenses, is very very reasonable.

The other thing to consider is one of the really really fine compact cameras that are available today. The best one out there at the moment is the Sony RX100 which has amazing image quality for a little camera and has loads of controls, but is expensive at $650. And because its soooo small, I don't find its controls to be nearly as accessible or useful as others, but for 12 year old hands, it might be great. Two other great options are the Panasonic LX7 and Fuji X10, both in the $500 range. The LX7 isn't AS good in low light as an m43 camera or as the Sony RX100, but its not bad at all. It handles ISOs of up to about 800-1000 quite well and its lens is very fast, with apertures that range from f1.4 at the wide angle end of the zoom to f2.3 at the telephoto end. Which is amazingly fast for a compact. So the lens lets in a LOT of light to go along with a reasonably good sensor. This camera has the best set of controls I've ever seen on a compact and its just large enough to feel like a real CAMERA, rather than a point and shoot that just happens to produce really good images. I think it would be a wonderful camera for someone just really learning the art/craft of photography. It has great auto focus, it has very useful manual focus, it has an aperture ring on the front like old time cameras, which are really nice. It has a multi-aspect sensor that would allow her to experiment with different formats (4x3, 3x2, 16x9, etc) and it has a nice wide 24mm wide angle. The ONLY thing you don't really get with these compacts is really narrow depth of field (where the subject is in focus and everything behind it is out of focus) which can be used to great artistic effect. None of these tiny cameras really does that very well except for extreme close up work. The LX7 with its f1.4 lens does it as well as any and better than most, but it won't compare with a larger sensor camera in this respect.

I have a Sony RX100 because I'm a low light junkie, but if I wasn't I'd get the LX7 - its just a tremendously fun camera to use and would be incredible to learn on. If $500 is too steep, the LX5 can be found for $350 and its almost equally good - not quite as good in low light, a slower lens, and the controls aren't as nice, but it'll produce equally good images in decent light.

If she really has her eye on something, though, and its within your price range, I'd go that way because if she's turned on by some aspect of a camera, she'll get into using it more and will have more fun with it and ultimately find out how into the whole thing she is.

-Ray

I think that this is a post worth re-reading. I really like my Nikon D90 -- it's kind of awesome for an amateur/consumer DSLR -- but even at that DSLR size it's a big thing for a 12 year-old to grab and carry if she doesn't really need it. I like Ray's suggested approach of a quality smaller camera like the G3 suggestion -- not a compact point and shoot but something considerably more portable than my DSLR that can be used very simply or not -- plenty of ways to work this and grow with it. I don't have one, but I've fiddled with one and the viewfinder seemed pretty nice. As for all the other options he listed -- he has a better sense of the models and features than I do, but I think his general thinking on this issue makes a lot of sense.

[rePhil]

I no longer make my living as a photographer so I am not up to date with equipment. My only advice is for her to look at photos she likes and try to figure out how it was done.What lens, lighting etc. These days Photoshop makes it a bit more difficult but the premise is still the same.

[William]

Thanks everyone! I appreciate all the expertise you folks are sharing.:cool:






William

[mhespenheide]

Lots of good general advice.

I'll echo that, for now, you probably want to stay away from the DSLR's unless she's firmly convinced that that's what she wants. If she is, and you're willing to support a possible mistake, go for it. One of the largest benefits to a DSLR, though, is in the handling: it's often much easier to see how to control the camera, in comparison to point-and-shoots where the controls are often indirect at best or hidden buried in menus at worst.

As of this instant, the best value in current DSLR's is probably Nikon's d3200 for ~$700 with a fabulous sensor. A major trade show is about to open, though, and new toys could be announced any day.

If you don't want to jump in the deep end quite just yet, models that are ~two product cycles old can be fantastic bargains on the used market. Within the last 2-3 years, Nikon and Pentax have probably had the best kit lenses while Nikon and Sony have probably had the best sensors.

I will add that I'd heavily recommend a model that has the capability to shoot RAW files, no matter what camera you decide on. Being able to manipulate the raw file is a bit like being able to manipulate the negative, and then also manipulate the print. Shooting raw adds more flexibility. But! Sometimes the .jpg conversion is better in camera than in software, so until you've got a good handle on it, shoot both raw and jpeg. Decide later which you'll use.

If you're willing to buy used, something like the Panasonic LX-3 or Canon S90, that while fiddly still allow control of both aperture and shutter speed, can be as low as ~$200 on the used market.

I would not start out with film. It's easier and faster to learn on digital, with a short feedback loop and near-zero-cost mistakes. Film is a lot harsher to learn on...

You might check out:
http://www.keh.com/

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Used-Equipment/ci/2870/N/4294247188?cm_sp=Banner-_-HomePage-_-BuyUsed

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=category&cat1=Used

or the forums at:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/gear-fs-wtb/

You'll get the best prices from private sellers on the forums, but that carries its own risks, as always.

That's probably too much information. Your first decision needs to be whether you want the more direct handling of a DSLR, or the lighter weight of a P&S. Then come back and ask again.

[wdbo]

Get her on 35mm. Learning how to shoot film is basically indispensable if you want to be serious about photography (yeah, I know she's only 12, but j.p. whitkin was selling to museums by the time he was 16).
If you want to learn photography, you need to learn how to see, digital only teaches you how to simulate seeing.
In addition to all this, a nice camera like a Nikon FA will be cheaper and more durable than any digital camera.

[Ray]

Get her on 35mm. Learning how to shoot film is basically indispensable if you want to be serious about photography (yeah, I know she's only 12, but j.p. whitkin was selling to museums by the time he was 16).
If you want to learn photography, you need to learn how to see, digital only teaches you how to simulate seeing.
In addition to all this, a nice camera like a Nikon FA will be cheaper and more durable than any digital camera.

Did you learn to ride on a penny farthing? There are things you can learn by shooting film, but you can learn to see just fine with digital. You learn exposure a little differently, but you can get there just fine. And mistakes are free so you can experiment a lot more. but composition is composition whether you're shooting film or digital and learning to see images in the frame rather than just taking pictures of things is what matters.

-Ray

[maunahaole]

William if she wants a manual 35mm film camera, I think I've got an olympus OM-2 lying around somewhere, that if I can find, she can have for shipping. I'm sure it will need a battery. It was their top of the line camera 30 or so years ago. No extra glass just the 50mm it came with

If you want to follow the "start with film" advice, this is a great camera. Even the 1.8 50 lens in nice. The 1.4 is nicer. It is an AP auto with manual option. A great way to learn technique and the role of DOF in shooting. Compact and light for a SLR. I have shot lots of pics with one and it is a nice camera to shoot with. It does tend to go through batteries pretty quickly.

I like the thought of starting with film, but the caution of learning with film and going dig is that film tends to have a lot more exposure latitude than dig, so often times, film will make up for your mistakes that dig will not. Dig is a lot less forgiving, imho. Old school cams are fun because of the tactile experience of using them, though.

[false_Aest]

brah,

w t f do I know?

1) I'd never buy a used digital body. Too many possibilities of unseen damage including dampness, sand, shock, loose wires, etc.

2) I would buy a used piece of glass though and I'd start with something slightly wider than "normal." In full-size sensor lingo this is 28mm - 40mm. You'll pay for a faster lens but there's a good amount of quality that comes with that. In other words, you don't have to rely on a tripod or boosting the ISO to 1600+ to take a picture. 35mm f1.8 used might run you $300 but the lens isn't going to go bad AND it can be used on other cameras (I'm talking about SLRs). Yes adaptors are avail and they do work. Nikon <--> Canon <--> Leica etc.

3) Zoom lenses are tempting but they tend to encourage laziness. Why move when you can zoom? Why pedal when you can coast?

4) Megapixles don't mean **** if you have a bad sensor + ****ty lens.

5) Megapix don't mean **** if you're posting to FB, flickr or printing out 8x10s. 8mp with good glass will make a sharp, well printed 8x10 and an acceptable 11x14.

6) If you don't have a full-frame sensor you will have a magnification factor. In other words, if you have a sensor that is 75% the size of a full frame, you have to multiply the focal length by 125% to understand it in full-frame lingo.
e.g. 50mm is "normal" with full frame. With a D90 a 50mm lens is slightly telephoto (60mm) -- yes my math isn't 100% correct I just illustrating.

7) Nikon. Canon. Pentax. Olympus. Sony. Who cares. At similar price points they're all comparable especially in the sum $1k range. Feel is more important.

8) I was given my first SLR for my 8th grade graduation. I took it everywhere because it had a small 50mm 2.0 on it. 19 years later I still have it. It's gone to Japan, Iraq, Argentina, Bolivia, Czech Repub, Hungary, Poland, etc. If your daughter wants to bring it somewhere she'll bring it with her. If she doesn't, she doesn't.

9) PnS cameras are dope. I've had some students make freaking awesome work with em. I have a friend that sells his prints for $8-10k and uses a Canon G series for some stuff. I think they're great tools in the right hands but everyone who makes good pictures learned how to shoot on a SLR first. The designs of most of em are a little more intuitive -- especially with shutter/aperture controlled by thumb and forefinger (Canon/Nikon).

10) If you end up trying to buy a used body. Most dSLRs have an actuation counter somewhere in their menus. Find it. Take a look at how many times the shutter has been fired. It'll give you an idea how how used it is. The last commercial shoot I was on averaged 5 gigs per day over 5 days. 5000mb / 26mb (filesize) = 192 shots/day (not including test shots, etc). You get where I'm going with this?

PS. I like the Canon 40D. But the sensor (CMOS not CCD) is something like 22x15mm (FWIW, the Rebel T3i has the same sensor area) whereas a full-frame sensor is 36x24.... 330mm^2 vs 864mm^2 buy your lens accordingly. But buy a full-frame lens because an upgrade is on its way.

[William]

Many thanks for all the comments and suggestions. One of our fine forum friends offered our daughter an Olympus OM2 to use if she liked. She wanted to try film so this is a great start. This camera has a history and has been all over the world and our daughter was honored to give it a home.

I guess we should look for a flash unit as this still has the hot shoe mount.

We will still look to digital at some point in the future but this looks like a fun start.





William

[mvrider]

The OM series were excellent! Great choice. I hope you can find a darkroom nearby for her to try, as well. With B&W film especially, at least 75% of the effort and creativity takes place in the darkroom.

[gavingould]

a quick addendum on what false_Aest said above...

some of the dslrs have shutter actuation counters in the menus, a lot of them don't. manufacturers generally rate their shutters to last between 100k and 300k actuations, not that they can't break at 10k or even 10. even using commercially, i've not pushed a shutter to its breaking point.

on a good race day or a wedding, i can pretty easily shoot 2500+ frames, but i usually still come out well under 50k shots per camera body a year.

put your money in the glass. bodies are a wear item and tech moves a lot quicker on them.

[KF9YR]

My daughter is also 12.

She has liked taking photos since she was 8 or 9. I bought her an inexpensive Nikon p&s and she would quickly fill the memory card and drain the battery.

I would format the card and let her start over. As she experimented I noticed how her photos were much different from mine even though we were standing a few feet apart. This really became apparent one evening in Sedona. The sun was setting and the reds in the rock formations kept getting deeper and deeper so I was trying to capture the moment from a wide-angle perspective.

After the sunset she asked me to take a look at her photos. There wasn't one photo of the famous red rock formations. She had liked the way some yellow berries looked, the leaves were either dead and shriveled up or had already blown away. She took the pictures from different angles and distances but they all reminded me that kids tend to look at things from a closer vantage point (and from a much lower angle as well).

Over the last few years as I've bought better lenses and a nicer dslr body I've given her my "old" equipment. She now uses a Nikon D40 when we go somewhere with the intention of taking photos. She has a couple of lenses in her bag but most of the time she asks to use a micro (close up) lens.

Since she's a 12 yr old girl there isn't a waking moment that her cell phone is out of reach. If the light is right some of those photos can be very good. She also uses Instagram both to post her photos and to look at others.

I really enjoy looking at both her photos and ones she saves to show me. It's a wonderful feeling sitting down next to your daughter and having conversations about the way each of you view an image.

I hope your daughter enjoys her camera and that you get to share some special times together because of it.

[Ginger]

The beauty of digital for kids is cost.

Not of the camera, of the developing. A kid learning a camera can go through a load of film, and even if you roll your own (which I recommend) and you're developing it yourself (which I recommend she learn along with ALL of the safety stuff that goes along with it) it gets spendy.

A full sized sensor digital camera with good glass will let her shoot all day without putting you or her in the poorhouse.

You can't break the rules properly until you know what they are. Or...photography clubs...I'm talking competitions and learning stuff with kids in her own age bracket...there may be a 4-H photography group in your area. http://www.uri.edu/4h/
I was a 4-H leader for a lot of years including photography. There's a bit of a danger at 12, that if you get her into a photography group it will stifle her views if you get the wrong group leader or the wrong group. I saw that in other clubs...But you can monitor that by going along to the meetings, if it gets to where it limits her creativity or damages her opinion of herself, or makes it "unfun" (very easy to do with a 12 year old no matter how independent they are), if you're there you can minimize the damage or explain why there are rules that are meant to be broken and it's ok to do so with composition through the lens if you do it well.

(I was going to compare and contrast a youth photography group with adult photography groups but the creepy photo dudes I met when I was very young and trying to find somewhere to learn better technique still creep me out)

[jpw]

The best camera you can ever have is the one you can never buy, the one inside your head.

Keep it as simple as is possible. Unless she's doing a significant amount of low light photography get a cheaper f2.8 aperture lens, something in the 35 to 50mm range, and a body with a maximum of three buttons.

[victoryfactory]

By the time we finish offering all of our brilliant camera advice
She'll be 20 and she can buy her own!

btw, I still vote for high end digital point and shoot with some sort of photo
class in the field to show her the basics of photography. You need to get
off the green "P" setting to be creative.

Some things have not changed in the digital world and greatly enhance and improve
the photography experience:

Composition
Light
Technique
Focus

Any good P&S has manual modes which allow you to learn the basics.
And like Opera, Your enjoyment grows the more you know.

VF

[tuxbailey]

Good choice. If your daughter likes the looks and handling of the OM, then the logical step is:

OM-D

http://static.trustedreviews.com/94%7C000022525%7Cb2d8_-DSC5761.jpg

[Ginger]

Even if you pick her up a digital SLR with a manual setting, also pick her up a decent light meter so she can learn to use the manual setting on her camera.

While I think learning with film teaches you to be mindful, wait for the moment, and shoot with intent (especially if you're paying for materials yourself) digital is an excellent tool to do what you have to do to be good at it, just like anything else...shoot more.

I've found, even at the "prosumer" level, digital camera light meters don't necessarily produce the results I want. With my sekonic light meter, I can meter the scene and expose it the way I want to expose it and I've found that the images have a much better color/contrast balance to them than the ones I allow the camera to meter.
That said, I only use it when I'm trying to get a particular look to a shot....
or when I'm shooting paint (Dazza's bikes) My canon's meter does Fail on purple bike paint, but if I shoot manually and use the light meter, things look far closer to what they should look like when they get on the screen. And yes, I shoot in raw, but it still helps to capture the image correctly in the beginning.

(Next we'll talk to you about image editing monitors for her computer...they're coming out with super inexpensive IPS panels these days...and it doesn't have to be huge, just clear and correct!)

Cheers,
Ginger

[vjp]

As a pro photographer for 20+ years I would suggest that whatever camera you get for your daughter get one that has a viewfinder.

Composition is critical in a good photo and there is a disconnect from the subject when holding a p&s at arms length and viewing the scene on the display.

I am "Artist in Residence" every spring for AFK a program for aspiring photographers from 14-17 yo and it is amazing the eye these kids have.

Here is a sampling of their work from the last one that we posted on TEST/model magazine an online magazine that we created to help support emerging photographers, designers and artists.

http://testmodel.com/2012/09/011-artists-for-kids/

[victoryfactory]

As a pro photographer for 20+ years I would suggest that whatever camera you get for your daughter get one that has a viewfinder.

http://testmodel.com/2012/09/011-artists-for-kids/

Agree.
I take back what I said about the P&S
I wish I could find a micro 4/3 camera with a built in viewfinder.
Then you have a real poor man's M9.
The clunky hot shoe mounted one I have is ...well, clunky.

VF

[vjp]

Yes!!

agree.
I take back what i said about the p&s
i wish i could find a micro 4/3 camera with a built in viewfinder.
Then you have a real poor man's m9.
The clunky hot shoe mounted one i have is ...well, clunky.

Vf

[Ray]

Agree.
I take back what I said about the P&S
I wish I could find a micro 4/3 camera with a built in viewfinder.
Then you have a real poor man's M9.
The clunky hot shoe mounted one I have is ...well, clunky.

VF

There are a few. Any of the Panasonic "G" or "GH" series cameras and the Olympus OMD all have built in EVFs. I shoot with and without viewfinders and don't find a viewfinder a particular factor in good composition (unless it's just too bright to see any other way). But if you gotta have one, they're available for m43 as well as pretty much any other system.

-Ray

[vjp]

I shoot with my 4" x 5" also and I guess that it is an equivalent of looking at a display, but for an inexperienced shooter I feel that your eye, through the lens connecting with the subjects eye is an experience that is essential to your growth as an artist.

There are a few. Any of the Panasonic "G" or "GH" series cameras and the Olympus OMD all have built in EVFs. I shoot with and without viewfinders and don't find a viewfinder a particular factor in good composition (unless it's just too bright to see any other way). But if you gotta have one, they're available for m43 as well as pretty much any other system.

-Ray

[Ray]

I shoot with my 4" x 5" also and I guess that it is an equivalent of looking at a display, but for an inexperienced shooter I feel that your eye, through the lens connecting with the subjects eye is an experience that is essential to your growth as an artist.

I think a lot of it is how we came up. Most of my earliest shooting as a kid was with a twin lens reflex that I was always holding at my belly and looking down into the glass display on the top - we had one (my Dad's old camera) and my Jr. High and High School were loaded with them. After several years of that I got an SLR and started using an eye-level finder. But to this day, my favorite digital cameras are those with a flip up screen that I can hold at belly or waist level and look down into like a TLR. The OMD has a flip up screen and an eye-level finder and I shoot a lot more with the LCD than the EVF. I actually find shooting with an eye-level finder fairly constraining for a lot of shooting, probably because that's not how I learned to shoot. I actually do a lot of street photography framing by instinct - as long as I'm shooting with something in the 24-28mm range I generally know what's in my frame without looking at the camera - that took a lot more practice, but for some kinds of shooting, no finder at all can be the best finder.

A lot of kids today have never shot with any kind of a viewfinder, growing up with point and shoot cameras, and I've seen plenty of fine compositions from a lot of them. I think you either have/develop an eye or you don't, but I don't think the framing method is that critical - just learning to "see" images rather than just taking photos 'OF" something is the challenge. I think whatever you're used to tends to be the best framing method for you. Everyone should certainly try a viewfinder at some point, because it may click for them and become their favorite framing method, but I don't think its a universal...

Just one opinion - I don't want to turn this into a photography forum, but it occasionally goes that way... :cool:

-Ray

[William]

...Just one opinion - I don't want to turn this into a photography forum, but it occasionally goes that way... :cool:

-Ray

A long thread on photography is fine by me.:cool: I'm just reading and learning from all the information that you fine folks are sharing. There's not a lot for me to share back on this topic right now.





William