It can be a slippery slope, with choices all the way down. Let me cut one of them by saying you want a digital camera rather than a film one. Then you're faced with the choice between...
a) A good compact - something you can take anywhere, but you can't change the lens, or
b) A DSLR ('digital single lens reflex' - you see exactly what the camera sees) - you can do more, including swapping lenses or sticking filters in front of them for special effects, but it's too big (and valuable) to take everywhere. or
c) Both. As I said, it's a slippery slope.
Regardless, when it comes to choosing which particular camera to get, the first thing to ignore is the number of megapixels (how many dots make up the picture). Lens quality and the capabilities of the camera's software are far more important. You absolutely want to see real pictures from anything you are considering.
So I have a compact, as does my primary partner. Her Kodak has more megapixels than my Sony, but in low light or using the flash, you can see them all: it has a very noisy picture. Mine is better.
If I were buying a compact now, I would look at
http://chdk.wikia.com and get a Canon camera that runs it - it's an upgrade for the camera's software that gives it far more capabilities. Check out the Amazon reviews for a few, and don't be afraid to get 'last year's model' if it's significantly cheaper.
I have a DLSR too. I made a mistake there. I didn't follow the basic rule: toss a coin - heads, get Nikon, tails, get a Canon. Why's that a rule? Because there's not much to choose between them, but between them, they dominate the market. You can get anything for a Canon or Nikon and it will be cheaper than getting it - if you can - for a Sony or an Olympus or Pentax. And what fits one brand will not fit another: you're trapped, unless you sell the lot and start over.
Anyway, because the camera was about ?100 cheaper than the equivalent CanoNikons, I went for Sony. It seemed a good idea at the time (I had around the right amount in Amazon vouchers) but it means I feel bad every time they don't see what the fuss is about when they do evil (quite often) and I will get screwed every time I buy something for it.
Last year, a friend posted about getting a fast (= lets lots of light through, which is good and something DSLRs can be much better at than compacts ever can be) 50mm (= good for photos of people) lens for her Canon DSLR. Cost her about ?50. Now, I hadn't been using mine much (you can't take it everywhere, unlike the compact) and it reminded of the joys of fast 50mm lenses. Look it up.. I'd need to pay ?250 for a Sony one. Eventually, after months of trying, I got one for half that on eBay. And it's superb (a bit better than hers) and produces great photos indoors without using the flash and I use it much more now than I ever did before. But already the total expense is more than the equivalent CanoNikon. Oops.
dpreview is great for showing you what a particular camera can do.
photo.net has some very good tutorials and manufacturer-neutral advice, plus a good forum.
Both can be guilty - like most other camera sites - of making you think that you need to buy this, this, this, this, this etc. That's partly because some of them have done so and want to feel good about the enormous expense. (Actually, I wonder if there's something in common with camera sites and punter sites...
)
Topic: Photography Help (Read 1060 times)