So I am going on this crazy adventure and I have never own a "nice" Camera. I would like something nice enough to capture this trip with quality pictures that it deserves. I am not interested in a point and click. But I don't want something with so many features I don't know what to do. Also with this I'm thinking two different lenses. One for "wider" pictures like landscape and mountains. The other for further away pictures hopefully of wildlife and such. I would like to stay under the $1k range. So here is my question.
What Camera would you recommend?
What lenses would you recommend?
Thanks in advance,
Derrick Metz
The telezooms are pretty decent now a days, but some of the "point and click" cameras have also evolved into very versatile systems....so there is an enormous range of camera options.
For example, I was out in AZ last Spring, and using just a "Point and Shoot", I was able to take some decent pics:
So, those are with a Canon Powershot S100...a camera that fits in your shirt pocket, etc. (The resolution of the pics themselves is MUCH sharper than the posted versions, they look softer in the posts due to site post resolution....but on your computer or a print they are razor sharp)
I find that on "adventures", you get a lot more shots if you have the camera with you than if it was too big to lug around. I used to do news and stock photography back in the '70's as one way to pay the bills, all film back then of course, but with SLR cameras with interchangeable lenses.
The interchangeable lenses do allow a degree of flexibility and shot composition that a point and shoot can't match, but, you DID NOT want features that you don't know how to use...but, the modern digital SLRs are EXTREMELY option packed.
You're best compromise might be a "Prosumer" camera, which blends the professional and consumer features....with heavy use of default settings.
That means its likely to have a simple way to say "I'm shooting a landscape....set the f stop and shutter speed and ISO accordingly", etc.
If you are well versed in how to set aperture, speed, ISO, etc, to get the depth of focus, sharpness or speed blur, and effects you want, they all have manual overrides as well.
The compromise in the point and shoots vs the interchangeable lenses is speed. The aperture of the wee camera systems tends to not be able to go, optically, as wide open as a dedicated low light lens.
A top quality zoom telephoto (which cost more than your entire budget for camera and lenses...) will maintain the same aperture (Say f 4.0, etc) as you zoom in or out...whereas the less expensive ones work just like the ones in the point and shoots, and the f stop climbs as you zoom in (So it might be F 4.0 at 50 mm but F 9 at 300 mm, and so forth).
As digital lenses have a bit of added tele effect than the 35 mm film camera equivalents...they RATE the lens in terms of what it would look like as a 35 mm camera, but, the end result is that longer range shots are EASIER to get, but, close range/wider angle shots are the hardest. (You have to back up too far to "get it all in the viewfinder"). To combat/overcome that, simply get a camera that's 35 mm equivalent lens length is wide angle, say less than 35 mm wide (85 mm is considered more of a "natural" length, but, to "get it all in" you might need closer to 25 mm for some close shots with your back against the wall, etc. This is getting closer to fish eye lengths, but, that's where you need to go sometimes.
A Powershot SX60HS for example might be a good compromise, in that its OPTICAL flexibility is wide enough to cover most of your needs w/o breaking your budget. (Only look at optical performance, as "Digital Zoom" doesn't really matter now that you can crop the pic your self later, and as long as the data is captured, you can zoom in on your computer and compose the "final" shot, w/o cutting off the peripheral data when actually shooting.