No announcement yet.

Need advise for a good camera (not too expansive)

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Need advise for a good camera (not too expansive)

    I would like to get a camera so I can capture some good memories so I can watch when I get older.

    Can you pros recommend me a good camera that's not too expansive? under $600 maybe? That's good and can work good in low lights, and good with fast moving objects. I noticed pictures I take with my phone 8MP looks really bad when taken in low light condition.

    Last year I was thinking to get DMC LX3 but didn't have extra money to do that.

    I saw DMC LX5 is out already but it's still 10MP. Is it better to get a camera with higher Mega pixel? I saw some of them are 14MPs but they are cheaper than the DMC LX5 or LX3's 10MP. how come?

    So are there any new good camera out nowadays that's not too expansive and good for learners like me?

    What screen resolution are you using in 2016?

  • #2
    Look into a Nikon D5100. They are relatively low priced. Your location is "ネット&" so... "Netherland"?
    Let us know your location as some cameras are not released in all countries, while some have different names depending on the region.

    Something that will last you is probably going to be a DSLR camera, not a point & shoot. Plus you have the ability to change up lenses should you want to in the future.

    Also, forget megapixel, it's not important. Your photos will look just as good with a 4mp camera as they will with a 20mp camera, I GUARANTEE. What's going to depend on the quality is the person holding the camera. Consider looking into the Nikon D3100 (Around $600 Canadian), D5100 (Around $800 Canadian) or even the Nikon D90. I have a D90 as my spare body and it's a work-horse, having already put through over 400,000 images into it.

    Best of luck and if you have any more specific questions, don't hesitate to ask us.


    • #3
      Originally posted by aquamarine View Post
      Also, forget megapixel, it's not important.
      that is 101% true unless youre printing them into full size posters
      also get in a quick course for photography that will help a lot
      as for the low light/fast moving - you will probably need an extra flash and a lens capable of f1.4(?) for the aperture size (lower# is better/begger opening)
      nikon will be the best bet for the wide selection of lenses
      as for the 'fast moving part' i cant comment much but most are capable of 1/5000th

      and here i am still using my 7mp pentax with tamron lenses
      Are you one of those humans
      who are ok to EAT?


      • #4
        One thing to note about DSLRs is that while they do provide the best performance, they are generally bulky and heavy. You have to be willing to drag that bulk around to take pictures, otherwise, don't buy them. The higher end "prosumer" compact cameras might be more suitable.


        • #5
          im planning on buying some semi pro/amateur camera too
          and my friend redirected me to the nikon D5500.
          His dad has photography as hobby and learned him quite some things too.

          he explained why it was a good camera using lots of different terms and difficult words.
          so in the end my head was spinning silly circles.


          • #6
            there is no way a higher end "prosumer" compact camera or any mirrorless can be "good in low lights, and good with fast moving objects"
            all P&S will be similar in 'speed' once you decide it's not enough you'll need a real DSLR.

            You still want something small, so take a look at the Nikon D3100 or Pentax K-r
            generally for fast moving objects you'll know P&S can hardly follow and focus. Nikon has the most accurate and fast AF currently.

            don't fall for all the people saying you need a fast prime f1.4 lens etc. they don't know what they're talking about. sorry, at f1.4 you'll have an inch of focus and by the time you click the shutter your fast moving object has gone elsewhere. it really doesn't help if you answer questions with incorrect info.

            if you don't know how to use a flash, it won't help your photos. consumer dslr go to 1/4000s, only higher end go to 1/8000s. if you can take a photo at 1/4000s, then clearly light isn't a problem and once again f1.4 etc is irrelevant.

            Any dslr will already be worlds away from your P&S, so you'll be fine with a variable aperture lens. Look at
            Nikon D3100 + 16-85 VR or Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS HSM
            Pentax K-r + 18-55 or 16-40 f4

            And lastly a warning. If you buy Canon or Sony you will regret it. Unless you have the staff 50% discount.


            • #7
              Originally posted by rental View Post
              And lastly a warning. If you buy Canon or Sony you will regret it. Unless you have the staff 50% discount.
              I must disagree regards to Canon. Sony, yes, as their aftermarket lens selection is not exactly great when compared to Pentax, Canon or Nikon, however the rest of what you posted up with, I've got to agree mostly with what you said.
              Also, regarding f1.4, yes for most people, that lens is too fast with too shallow a depth of field unless the person is shooting walls all the time. A f1.8 from any brand will do the trick in many cases.


              • #8
                There's a spambot worth nuking.


                • #9
                  I'm not saying Canon are bad, far from it, but there are deficiencies most people won't know nor understand, and hidden costs again most people won't know nor understand. Whether those roadblocks are on your path, well it'll take too many pages to work out! Well it's all problems solved by money, so in that sense it's not a death sentence.

                  And the worst thing is all the staff buying at 50% off, and selling 'unwanted gift' for profit. It's hard to get a good price for old gear when low end models come out yearly.

                  Sony not only is lens selection poor, but /some/ of their 1st party lenses are not as sharp as ones made by other brands, even 3rd party brands. Also come brand lock-in tries by their suits ruins their tech, like it ruins most Sony hardware. Durn suits...


                  • #10
                    Pentex K-r is a good choice. It is not expensive and good 18-55 Lenses.
                    Besides It looks great,have many different colors.


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by gotoyou View Post
                      Pentex K-r is a good choice.... Besides It looks great,have many different colors.
                      You're kidding me, right? Scuse me while I puke into the back of my throat a little.


                      • #12
                        The Pentax K-r is EXACTLY what fits your description, Hongfire. You could also go for its predecessor, the Pentax K-x, which sell for ~$450USD or less nowadays. 12MP I believe. Though, as mentioned earlier, MP count shouldn't really be a determining factor. If you find reviews of the K-x, you'll see that it schools all the Nikon, Canons, Sonys in its price range.

                        You'll also find out that the biggest thing that makes it (the K-r and K-x) stand out from others is its incredible low-light ability, unmatched in any entry-level DSLR. Also, 18-55mm kit lens (the lens included with the camera) is really good, better than any other lens other companies include in their kits, so you start off with a pretty good lens and camera for $450 or less.

                        Don't have the extra money to buy modern, digital lenses? That's okay! Pentax designed their cameras to accept ANY Pentax lens from the past 30 years! Old Pentax glass is sought after even by those who shoot Nikon and Canon because the image quality and build quality is excellent (outperforming the lesser digital lenses that cost +$200) for an inexpensive price. For less than $100 USD even! You can get an excellent, fast (meaning wider aperture for shooting low light better) 50mm prime for ~$50USD!

                        The minus side to cheaper old lenses is that they don't have autofocus. You'll have to learn to manually focus, which definitely has a learning curve to it and will cause frustration when starting out with it.

                        If you want an inexpensive, modern lens with autofocus, as well as the ability to shoot in low-light and up-close, I recommend the Pentax 35mm f2.4 macro. Very well-reviewed lens that's cheaper than competitors' counterparts. Autofocuses decently fast, focuses very close to camera, and 2.4 aperture meaning its good for low-light. It's going for only $170USD. This is a prime lens, meaning there's no zooming, though you'll have zoom covered with the kit lens.

                        The quality difference between the K-r and the K-x isn't that significant, I believe, so you can save $150-$200 by going with the K-x. You can use that saved cash to get an extra lens or two.


                        • #13
                          I think canon 20D is good for newbie, recomend try it
                          Share for retrive


                          • #14
                            Great selection of cameras posted by everyone, but from what I get in HongFire's post is, he wants a simple camera, easy to carry around, and is going to do what he wants. With pricing, please ignore what you see on my list as it could be different where you are, the deals you may find over there, or if you buy secondhand; but from what I guess, the cameras I'm recommending should be within your price range.

                            For me, it'd be the Sony Cyber-shot RX100, or upgraded Sony Cyber-shot RX100 II, which you can attach an extra flash too (which is very handy if you more light power or want to get creative).

                            I haven't had a chance to use the RX series yet, but I had a friend who had one and had a little look at it. I was using the Sony DSC WX300 at that time.
                            Now, reasons I recommend the RX100, or RX100II (if you can afford it and believe you'll want the extra flash in the future) is because it's the high-end stuff, put into a small point and shoot camera.
                            I also like Sony's Exmor, which works great for night shots.
                            The fixed 1.8f is a huge plus in my opinion (for simple terms, 1.8f is great for night shots).
                            The RX series is small, light, compact, and full of functionality.

                            If Sony isn't you're kind of thing (or if people really want to keep saying how bad Sony is), I can recommend the Fujifilm X20. My friend bought one, I got to play around with it, and it's great on the night shots. It's full of features too which I liked, and the lens is great. So Fujifilm X20 is my alternative.

                            Lastly, the Olympus Stylus Tough TG-3. Recommended by a friend of mine. Great quality, waterproof, shockproof, all that kind of stuff, and you can buy lenses for it to give it the extra umph whenever you want (though it's a gimmick really). Quality of your night photos are standard issue, no fancy features like the Sony and Fujifilm that make it extra good. But it's the fact that this guy can go through many hardships, who knows what you may get yourself into? So this one is up to you HongFire.

                            For Canon and Samsung compact cameras, I can't and will not recommend to be honest. Lots of features which I like, but I'm not impressed with their photo quality.
                            I haven't used the newer Panasonics but I know they're decent cameras (my first camera ever was a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX12). I don't know how they compare the ones I've listed.
                            And as mentioned, I am suggesting compact cameras it sounds like you want something simple, friendly on the wallet, and high quality, these are my choices of all that I've seen and used in my experience.

                            However, if you do plan on wanting to expand in the future (going pro, or more than just memories), Canon and Nikon DSLR is the way to go. I don't know anything about these 'hidden/extra' costs of Canon, but if it's true, and you want to be safe from it, Nikon is the way to go then - but if you're going this route, it means you must be ready to fork out the money, now, and in the future.
                            If you're just looking to get great shots for memories, easy to use, etc, the 3 I listed are my recommendations here. Specially Sony because it's less bulkier.

                            I'm no professional, just a hobbyist photographer. I currently use the Sony SLT-A55V myself, with a goal to upgrade to the Sony SLT-A99 one day when I have money... Or whatever else Sony may throw out there by then... I personally like the Sony range, and as a hobbyist looking for memories and great shots, it's enough for me.
                            Last edited by bitsnpieces; 04-19-2014, 12:02 AM.
                            Originally posted by Andriod
                            I can achieve immortality by not wearing out. You can achieve immortality simply by doing one great thing, keep walking.
                            D3 Studio


                            • #15
                              I've just been looking around in general, if you want some nice high-zoom fun, without having to go the expensive lenses, and get great quality, I found 2 cameras which I've been watching YouTube reviews and think these 2 are my pick for fun:

                              Sony DSC-HX300
                              Cannon PowerShot SX50-HS

                              Not too expensive, and both run great.

                              Here's the YouTube review I was watching:
                              Originally posted by Andriod
                              I can achieve immortality by not wearing out. You can achieve immortality simply by doing one great thing, keep walking.
                              D3 Studio