[mtecnic]

I have this camera:
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Cybershot.../dp/B000ENN9BK

can you help me find lens' and explain what they will do for the photos I take? I know this is pretty general but i expect blankety answers as i'm just getting started.

The main focus would be car photography and then following with landscapes. I want to take better pictures

regards,
Nic

[JuuS]

This camera is really a glorified point-and-shoot 'dummy' camera. You will be able to learn composition with this (or any camera for that matter) and be able to fiddle to some extent, with the aperature/shutter priority modes but it doesn't come close to learning on a 'real' slr camera.

Are you sure you can change the lens on this thing? I wouldn't spend any amount of money buying lenses for this camera. They are worthless.

Look into a (used or new) Canon Rebel, or Nikon D40 or 60. The kit lens that comes with these cameras are more than enough for a beginner. The 18-55mm lens will be good for landscapes and car shots.

[Chewy734]

^+1.

That being said, I wouldn't buy a point-and-shoot camera to learn photography (especially older ones). I feel that they would restrict me too much. P&S cameras have their own advantages, such as small size, cheaper, easier to use, etc. I'm sure most photogs here have a P&S, but I'm pretty sure most of them use it occasionally, for specific circumstances.

You also don't need to go to the other extreme either. No need to spend thousands on a dSLR with lenses. Keep is simple and cheap, and as you grow into your camera you'll know what upgrades to make. Good luck!

[mtecnic]

Ok so I took a trip down DSLR road and asked one of my acquantainces about them and he said he could take a better picture with his point and shoot than I could with any entry level DSLR. I'm underwhelmed.

[Chewy734]

P&S can take great images, don't get me wrong. But, it'll be much more difficult to learn photography with a P&S, imo. Taking great shots and learning how to shoot great are two different things.

[mtecnic]

Thoughts on the Nikon D3100 ?

Nic

[rodi]

any new DSLR will be just fine to start out with. get the cheapest current generation one you can find.
canon or nikon? I always say nikon because you can buy cheap old vintage nikon lenses whereas with canon, you're limited to the (relatively) young EF mount. cheap nikon dslr + $40 prime lens from 1970 = perfect setup for beginners looking to learn photography and not just wanting to "take better pictures."

[mtecnic]

ok, i've been balls deep in research trying to figure out what to buy. I can go with couple gen old stuff for 500 like a Nikon D80. Then there is the newer stuff for about 500.

The big questions I have:
Is the guide mode on the Nikon d3000 and d3100 really going to be helpful for very long?

Is the lack of a focus motor in some of the lower end stuff a big deal? Is it going to piss me off later? I'm not sure how this effects the experience.

Will I notice much a difference in image quality with 1-2 generation older stuff like the d3000 or d60-70-80 ?

Thanks!
Nic

[The1]

Originally Posted by mtecnic

ok, i've been balls deep in research trying to figure out what to buy. I can go with couple gen old stuff for 500 like a Nikon D80. Then there is the newer stuff for about 500.

The big questions I have:
Is the guide mode on the Nikon d3000 and d3100 really going to be helpful for very long?

Is the lack of a focus motor in some of the lower end stuff a big deal? Is it going to piss me off later? I'm not sure how this effects the experience.

Will I notice much a difference in image quality with 1-2 generation older stuff like the d3000 or d60-70-80 ?

Thanks!
Nic

The guide is pretty handy to have, it's like having your own teacher standing beside you while you're out taking pictures. That being said, it's just a guide, and there's a lot to learn out there beyond just how to set up the camera for a shot, things like composition you learn on your own.

by focusing motor i assume you mean autofocus? that would be purely subjective if it's something that will bug you in the long run or not. Digital SLRs don't have a focusing screen that woud have been used on older cameras that took the lenses without autofocus, so it can be hard to manually focus it as a result. I would stick with auto-focus lenses to make life easier.

There is a difference in image quality over the years, and their always will be, but it depends what your goals are. if you're printing 4x6 images, you'd be fine with 3 megapixels. if you're looking to make posters, that won't be capable of doing that to the same extent as say, 12 megapixels or more.

some of the older generations from 5-7 years ago are still being used by professionals, they are very capable, but the focusing systems in them are a bit dated, and some other features of the newer stuff doesn't exist. Low light sensitivity will be sacrificed along with better autofocus.

you really have to assess what you want and need.

and to your friend who says his P&S camera will shoot a better shot then a DSLR, he's 100% correct. As long as the person with the DSLR has never used one before. The colour depth, the light sensitivity, and the amount of information in a single DSLR image is on a completely different level. but you have to know how to make the most out of it, if you're putting the DSLR in automatic, and shooting only in jpeg format, you're not going to get the results you want.

if you're ready for the challenge, grab a DSLR, if you want a really good point and shoot, get a Canon S-95 or used S-90, they are as close as you can get to a DSLR without actually having one. And they still pale in comparison.