It’s my daughter’s 16th birthday soon and she has expressed an interest in a “proper” camera. I know nothing about cameras and techie stuff generally so I’m hoping y’all might be able to help.

Looking for a camera around £500 to get her started. Preferably with Wifi but not absolutely essential. Any recommendations folks?

‘Proper’ as in something with interchangeable lenses, ability to take filters, flashes, etc?

Olympus OMD EM10 mark ii ticks the boxes. Plenty of nice lenses available for future expansion too.

.

“Proper” for me means optical (mirror) view-finder

This makes for a physically bigger camera but you can never progress past a point with electronic view finders.. (excepting studio shots and then you connect to a PC/TV)

£500 to get her started

Either Canon or Nikon DSLR and at least one f2.8 or better lens
Resolution is a bit irrelevant today …. except professional use.
Ability to shoot RAW (not JPEG) is a big bonus.

I got a Nikon for my 21st …. and I have kept with it …. and still use many of the lenses… (film is too expensive to use it though)

Anything post 2000 will be great…. IF this takes off as a hobby the body will become the cheapest part very quickly… if not she’ll certainly get great shots.

Nikon D3400 has wifi. I have the D3300, and it’s lovely (at least coming from compacts and smartphone cameras)

rx100 in whatever variant you can afford.

small, light, portable. the best camera is the one you have with you and lugging a DSLR & lens etc round with you is a complete pain. for me anyway.

What’s the Wifi for? Remote control of the camera, or just grabbing the pics from the phone, in which case:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Toshiba-R032GR7AL01-SDHC-Class-10-Flash-memory/dp/B00HEDF8MQ

(Pic size sorry) Though she might need a bigger camera to fit it in.

My Sony has ‘wi-fi’ but won’t export images at the highest resolution via wi-fi – only the cable.

It’s ok if I want to send an image to my phone or tablet for Instagram or soemthign but the original image needs loading to a pc via a wire.

rx100 in whatever variant you can afford.

Canon GX-7 mk II is much less of a geeks-fest of a camera and is very usable, and better built. If you buy Sony just get a good warranty on it.

I love my SONY a6000. I’m really glad I replaced my Nikon DSLR + kit for it as it has meant I take the camera with me much more often.

It has NFC, WIFI and has performed flawlessly. You have to into £1000s of pounds to get a dSLR that will out perform it, and as a mostly amateur photographer I don’t need to spend that. At the last world cup in Fortwilliam I clambered down to the bottom of the finishline slope only to find all of the world’s famous mtb photogs huddled in the same ditch…..virtually all of them were using Sony A6000/6300s.

Similar story at the Enduro World Series too. If it’s good enough for Sven Martin and Duncan Philpott it’s good enough for me.

You have to into £1000s of pounds to get a dSLR that will out perform it

Performance in terms of image quality/resolution etc. is in many ways a non issue today.

In the old (pre-digital) day’s it was equally true that you stick a good lens in front if a good film you get the same quality. Everything else was nice to have… including metering.

I’m completely with you on portability … especially for me and you but that’s because I’m riding a bike.

Perhaps I’m getting a bit old fogey but no mirrorless camera has even given me the ergonomics to shoot action and manual focus, change shutter and depth of field on the fly….

I’ve used Cannon DSLR’s as well and despite controls being in the wrong place and some going in completely the opposite direction to what I’m used to this is nowhere near as “disassociated” as non-optical viewfinders..

When I take studio shots its the complete opposite as I’ll use the non optical out onto HDMI or a PC…. and use menu’s not buttons etc. (like using an old mid-large format film)

The Sony’s are fantastic optically…. and sensor wise but I just don’t think going straight to a mirrorless as a first proper camera is good.

Its completely possible I sound like the “no one should ever ride a FS without learning on a rigid” but I just think the skills/experience start on the DSLR and then can be transferred to any other camera. (Even a mobile phone) but if you want to learn and develop photography then you need some time on a DSLR and possibly at some point some actual film 😀

This..

My Sony has ‘wi-fi’ but won’t export images at the highest resolution via wi-fi – only the cable.

This..
My Sony has ‘wi-fi’ but won’t export images at the highest resolution via wi-fi – only the cable.

I’m not sure that’s a killer…. Wifi is useful if you want to post something instantly on Instagram/FB etc. (in which case your not posting full res)

i’m pretty sure my rx100 exports full resolution over wifi.

you can never progress past a point with electronic view finders..

why not?

in many ways with modern EVF’s I think the tide has turned and it’s the other way round – you can actually learn quicker, and have far more functionality with an EVF than with an optical viewfinder.

I used to be optical through and through, but EVF’s now are excellent.

stevextc

You have to into £1000s of pounds to get a dSLR that will out perform it

Performance in terms of image quality/resolution etc. is in many ways a non issue today. [/quote]

I meant performance in terms of autofocus speed, tracking accuracy, iso range, noise, shutter speed, continuous frame rate etc.

The Sony’s are fantastic optically…. and sensor wise but I just don’t think going straight to a mirrorless as a first proper camera is good.

Its completely possible I sound like the “no one should ever ride a FS without learning on a rigid” but I just think the skills/experience start on the DSLR and then can be transferred to any other camera. (Even a mobile phone) but if you want to learn and develop photography then you need some time on a DSLR and possibly at some point some actual film

I can’t unlearn what I know, having started on fully manual film slrs 25ish years ago so it’s hard to put myself in a complete beginners shoes. I can see the merits of someone learning the fundamental principles with a basic film camera for sure, since that’s how I learned. I can still guess pretty well what iso, aperture and shutter speed should work for a given scene as my old art teacher made me guess when I was learning. But I personally can’t perceive any issue at all caused by the loss of the mirror. Absolutely zero. In terms of ergonomics and manual focusing I much prefer using manual lenses, happily most of them can fit.

but if you want to learn and develop photography then you need some time on a DSLR and possibly at some point some actual film

bobbins… IMO.

Back to the OP…

I feel most modern cameras are very very very good, with little to choose between them – a lot of differences are nit-picking in the specs.

Unless you have some fundamental requirement like extremely fast AF tracking which requires a body costing thousands, then IMO the deciding factor is handling – what are they like to hold and interact with..? She wont use the camera beyond the initial play/excitement if it’s awkward to hold, heavy or has simple options buried in menus.

My advice would be go to a shop which stocks plenty of options (Jessops, John Lewis or any other decent local camera shop) and and get her to have a play – maybe take her on her birthday to choose one.

Wow, that Wifi card thingy might have just saved me a few hundred quid!
I’ve got an aging Nikon D40 and the stock 18-55 lens was knackered. So obviously I was looking at a new camera (any excuse for new toys) and was very quickly over £500 for one with wifi/bluetooth 😯
So, I could get one of those cards for £40 and a new (used) lens for £60.

How do I justify to Mrs PP that I now have a spare £400 that doesn’t really exist to spend on bike stuff??

Yep, that’s what I meant and as cp said:

I feel most modern cameras are very very very good, with little to choose between them – a lot of differences are nit-picking in the specs.

Unless you have some fundamental requirement like extremely fast AF tracking which requires a body costing thousands, then IMO the deciding factor is handling – what are they like to hold and interact with..? She wont use the camera beyond the initial play/excitement if it’s awkward to hold, heavy or has simple options buried in menus.

The modern cameras really are good at all the technical stuff…. then I am focusing (no pun intended) on the ergonomics and stuff in menu’s…

But I personally can’t perceive any issue at all caused by the loss of the mirror. Absolutely zero.

As long as they have dedicated and easy to use dials for aperture and “film speed” …. it’s not the lack of the mirror itself but the (from my experience) lack of usable dials you can use without taking your eye from the view finder… or

I can still guess pretty well what iso, aperture and shutter speed should work for a given scene

This is the other thing I do… and for the same reasons as you…
When I’m taking anything except a studio shot these are all being set as I lift the camera up…. literally if I think “this is a f4@1/250” I’ll have set f4@1/250 before I’ve even looked at the camera. (+/- a stop and shutter speed) …

In bike terms, I guess it’s like approaching a double and gauging the speed you needed to clear it. I’ve often followed better/more experienced people over a double.. and used their speed as my guide.

I’m not in any position to make money on my bike skills… but if I was I don’t think you can be original and do the really cool stuff just by taking the “recommended settings” and there has to be an intuitive element.

I can’t convince myself that’s not a integral part of what makes a real photo over a snap….

stevextc

jimjam » I meant performance in terms of autofocus speed, tracking accuracy, iso range, noise, shutter speed, continuous frame rate etc.

Yep, that’s what I meant and as cp said:[/quote]

Sorry steve, in your earlier post you mentioned image quality and lenses, so that’s what I assumed you meant in terms of performance. And while I agree with cp that most current cameras are pretty good there is a profound difference between something that shoots 2 or 3fps, and perhaps 2 out of 5 are in focus and 11fps and 9 or 10 are in focus.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9I9ir6k8tw&t=27s[/video]

As long as they have dedicated and easy to use dials for aperture and “film speed” …. it’s not the lack of the mirror itself but the (from my experience) lack of usable dials you can use without taking your eye from the view finder… or

It has dials for aperture, shutter and a button for iso.

Sorry steve, in your earlier post you mentioned image quality and lenses, so that’s what I assumed you meant in terms of performance.

Yep I really meant they all have pretty good performance…
I can’t watch he whole 22mins now … but I’ve never relied on auto-focus for action. That doesn’t mean I don’t use it but actually setting it on anything but centre lock is just too much trouble when I have a focus ring. I’ll ballpark with the AF but then I’m adjusting focus by hand

I skipped through bits of the vid... and its interesting but seems a bit biased? I watched a bit on default colour balance and skin tones… but why would anyone use a default colour balance (in that situation) ? I only shoot RAW so I set colour balance in processing and the vid guy says “with the cannon you need to do each photo” but I do batches (processing from RAW) so I’ll set colour balance for a whole set in one go.

It has dials for aperture, shutter and a button for iso.

I’ve used earlier Sony mirrorless (couldn’t say which model as its a friends camera) and found the dials are just fiddly. Whereas as a Nikon user I’ve found Cannon dials a bit in different places and going the other way but after 10-15 minutes perfectly usable.

Perhaps part of me is getting old-fogey…. I can’t decide if a 285 BHP car that gets 50mpg when driven carefully is a 100% good thing .. well I can right until I open the bonnet and find apart from adding fluids there is nothing I can tweak… I know in my mind that its a way superior engine to my old cars but not being able to tweak the engine really rattles me 😀

rx100 in whatever variant you can afford.

-1 for that. Although I agree the image quality and carry-ability are v good for a compact zoom, mine was so fiddly to handle and unintuitive to use it that actively discouraged any actual manual creativity. It also conked out on me within 12 months, and I handled it gently. Seems like a common problem in the series and Sony customer service with their cameras is, er…worth googling.

I’d recommend a ‘user-friendly’ camera that feels like a camera and has actual dials and stuff that work with you.

Would recommend something like a lightly-used Olympus EM-5 mkII with the kit lens, or if want the SLR option then go any wifi-capable Canon body with both a nifty-fifty and wide-angle zoom?

Thanks folks. Loads there to inform my camera search!

stevextc
I’ve never relied on auto-focus for action. That doesn’t mean I don’t use it but actually setting it on anything but centre lock is just too much trouble when I have a focus ring. I’ll ballpark with the AF but then I’m adjusting focus by hand

Same here but that’s because I’ve never had a camera that could auto focus fast enough and reliably enough. The a6000 and later models are blindingly fast, very accurate and at 11fps you will get what you point it at in focus.

I skipped through bits of the vid… and its interesting but seems a bit biased?

It’s extremely biased but that’s down to the fact they are comparing a £500 camera to a £1500 camera. There are dozens of other videos comparing it favorably to other high end dslrs. To be honest if I to swap my a6000 for any other camera to use exclusively I’d be torn between the a6300 or the A7r or the new A9. In fact even if I somehow end up shooting for a living I don’t see a dslr making it’s way back into my kit.

Same here but that’s because I’ve never had a camera that could auto focus fast enough and reliably enough. The a6000 and later models are blindingly fast, very accurate and at 11fps you will get what you point it at in focus.

I’m using the Nikon AF … the reason I don’t use it though is mainly because I’d have to fiddle with the focus point as I change zoom and framing … I do have a rocker button that allows that but I’ve never really tried in real life (I messed with it and again it seemed like a lot of faff compared to focusing by hand)

I can see how software could do that… I’m a little intrigued (not quite ready to ditch the DSLR yet but how does that part work?)

I don’t have giant hands but I found my friends Sony very fiddly… the buttons existed but I couldn’t use them effectively in any sort of action setting. (We were actually at Goodwood Festival of Speed on one occasion shooting Rally …. the cars had passed by the time I’d fiddled)

stevextc

I’m using the Nikon AF

What model?

@jimjam

Old D300 (it’s last I WITHOUT video*) … but the issue isn’t so much the accuracy of the auto-focus but what the AF focuses on and framing especially as I zoom….

*I’ve considered getting another body for use with Video but I can’t be doing with all the extra menu items and stuff video adds… quite honestly I’d rip out half the menu’s anyway.. I don’t want JPEG/WB … and 90% of the menu items that are just clutter as I NEVER use them…

Truth be known it would be somewhere between my FM and FG (with motorwind)… if I could redesign it functionally …

It’s set up for RAW … pure and simple and WB etc. are ALWAYS done in processing. It hasn’t shot as single JPEG since a week after I bought it..

However … the thing weighs above 10kg in the bag with a set of f2.8 and better lenses, a couple of speedlights etc. and since I bought it I’ve got a kid (now 7) no longer try to make a living from photography (it was barely a living when I did)… and video/wifi makes sense…