I blame you guys

[CoxeyDiesel]

After looking at all the superb photography here, I've decided I need to step up my game from my iPhone. Where would you guys start? I don't want to waste money on a subpar setup but at the same time I don't want to spend more than $1000 or so.

What would yall suggest to get me started?

[Ride4frnt]

I would start somewhere in the realm of entry level Canon SLR's. T3i, T5i, etc. you can find them in kits (body, lens, bag, card, extra battery, other accessories) for $700 or so brand new. This should be a good place to start. I shoot with a t2i, UW mentioned he shoots with a t3i.

Check adorama.com or bhphotovideo.com for the kits. I know adorama has multiple kits in the $700 area.

[RiverRat]

What I might recommend largely depends on the type of pictures you intend to take, what your level of experience is and how much you are willing to grow into gear if it's more than you would use now.

Assuming you know at least a little about what you're doing (for example, you know how to use aperture and shutter prioroty modes), then there are a few good options.

For travel, walk-around and street photography, I might be inclined to point you towards the Olympus OM-D E-M10 or Panasonic GX7 mirror-less bodies. Both use small micro 4/3rd sensors in easy to carry bodies. Lenses for these systems (generally) tend to relatively inexpensive while providing good image quality. Both have in-body image stabilization, so any lens you attach gains some degree of forgiveness from movement (on your part, not the subject's). Both are unobtrusive - people will be less likely to notice you or complain about you snapping pictures. Both are available with 14-42mm general use lenses for around $700. Unfortunately both tend to autofocus slowly, making them poorly suited to sports and wildlife photography. Color rendition can be a bit of an issue in lower light and it's tough to get artistically thin depth of field, if that's your thing. Fuji and Sony mirrorless systems work better in low light and have greater creative control, but generally cost more (fewer, more expensive lens options.)

For a more versatile setup, I would consider a Canon T5i (since that model is still widely available and has better autofocus than the older models) in a kit with 18-55mm + 70-300mm lenses for the $770ish. Or ebay for a T2i, T3i or T4i used - I think bodies should be available starting around $250 and you can skip the kit lenses for something better. These all have the same workhorse APS-C sensor that delivers excellent performance in general use. No in-body stabilization, so you'll end up paying for long (or slow) lenses with image stabilization. In my opinion, you can get (much) better glass for this system than you can for the mirrorless systems - though the gap is closing. For example, I think the normal 85mm prime lens is often underrated - it really is a steal for $370 after rebate. Heck, I have a friend who does amazing things with the $100 50mm f/1.8 lens. But these APS-C systems really are more versatle - very good for sports and wildlife in addition to all the uses where the Oly and Panny work. You get more exposures out of a batter charge (it's physically larger). On the downside, lugging a body plus a couple of lenses in casual settings isn't as carefree - you pretty much have to plan to be taking photos to make it feel worthwhile. I can't comment on the Nikon side.

The other thing I really recommend is reasonable image processing software. You can limp along with the software provided my manufacturers for a while, but it really is pretty weak stuff if you start to get serious. I recently adopted Adobe Lightroom after using only Photoshop CS5 for a couple of years. I didn't believe that it would make as much difference as it has - my workflow has gotten much smoother and I can get images pretty far along just in Lightroom.

Hope that helps a little - feel free to ask more specific questions as your thinking evolves.

[CarbonScoring]

Depending on what you want from your photography, and what types of shots you want to take, you may want to look into getting an off-camera flash as well. Whatever camera or brand, you should be able to find a speedlight that can be triggered without it being on the camera itself. Photography is just capturing light. Controlling the light is what will make you photographs better, even if you're just using an iPhone.

[WHSmithIV]

Any reasonable camera will do and as just mentioned above, lighting is the key. So, you want a camera with built in flash. I've been using my 3.3 megapixel Olympus camera now for over 7 years. You can post process on the computer by adjusting contrast and adding light very easily just using the the normal photo viewer included with Windows.

The good thing about digital cameras is that you can easily take 100 pics and throw 99 of them to the trash just keeping the one good one.

[CarbonScoring]

lighting is the key. So, you want a camera with built in flash.

I can't quite agree with that. Nothing makes a photo look like a snapshot more than built-in flash, at least to me. I'm sure there are good photos with built-in flash, but even getting the flash on a camera-mounted bracket will greatly improve most photos.

One problem with the built-in flashes are they tend to be close to the lens. This means the light is bouncing straight back into the lens. When the light source is off-camera you get better highlight/shadow definition and hot spots aren't so dramatic. You also tend to get harsher light with the built-in flashes. They're small compared to speedlights and the smaller your light source (or more distant the source), the harsher the shadows will be.

Again, this all depends on what you want/expect from your photography. If you're shooting outdoors, you may be able to use the built-in flash to fill shadows a bit.

[Txfilmmaker]

I have used the built in flash as a fill light. It's worked well in that role. I agree with the Canon recommendations. I have one. Two of my daughters bought themselves Canons. Lenses are important, but you can still get great photos with the kit lens that comes on most cameras. Canon makes a $100 lens called the "nifty-Fifty that is the best "cheap" lens out there. RiverRat may have alluded to that one. Another great bang for the buck camera is the Nikon D3200. $446 on Amazon. My oldest daughter bought this one. As has been stated, lighting is huge. You can get a nice flash, but you can also use DIY lighting for controlled situations. If you have friends with a certain brand, it's good to go that way. Then you can share knowledge and lenses, etc.

[UWone77]

Any reasonable camera will do and as just mentioned above, lighting is the key. So, you want a camera with built in flash. I've been using my 3.3 megapixel Olympus camera now for over 7 years. You can post process on the computer by adjusting contrast and adding light very easily just using the the normal photo viewer included with Windows.

The good thing about digital cameras is that you can easily take 100 pics and throw 99 of them to the trash just keeping the one good one.

I can't agree with this either.

Your 7 year old camera is probably outclassed by recent cell phone cameras in all honesty. You can still get decent pictures, in fact, I was able to get some decent results from a 9 year old one when I first started snapping pictures.

OP Start with this thread:

http://www.weaponevolution.com/forum...ht=photography

Lighting is key, try taking a picture on a cloudy day outdoors.

[JHoward]

[Slippers]

It's really not the camera. It's an understanding of how to apply lighting. You can use an iphone to take amazing pictures, especially after you ditch the stock camera app and use something with full manual control, and apply the right lighting to the scene, along with a tripod.

Any of the current or last two generations of sensors, even in entry level DSLRs, are more than adequate. I think the general public has a huge misconception that more expensive bodies = better pictures. The reality is that the enthusiast and pro bodies generally add useful features for those that use cameras as a work tool, like larger and faster buffers, twin memory card slots, water proofing for bad weather, alloy frames for durability, higher shutter cycle life, etc. They don't necessarily add a noticeable advantage in image quality. Also, there's a reason most professional bodies do not have a built in flash.

If you're serious about photography, you spend money on lighting and lenses, and depending on what you're doing, a really good tripod. Those are the most important parts of the equation, and something you keep forever. Bodies come and go. With that said, even the standard kit zooms aren't half bad anymore, but there's definitely something to be said when you start using Canon L or Nikon Nikkor professional glass.

I have three photographers in my family, and between the three of them and my hobbying we have a Canon 5DmkII, 60D, T2i, two S95, Nikon D300, D7000, D5300, two D50, two Olympus OM-D EM-5, a Panasonic GH4 and GH3, Sony NEX-5N, A7s, and a Mamiya 7 (medium format film). And dozens and dozens of high end lenses.

Personally, my travel camera is the OM-D. If I go on an extended backpacking trip without power, I take an SLR for the battery life, usually the 60D or D7000. At home, I shoot all the Arisaka images with the D7000.

I'm not sure why Nikon gets a bad rep, but I own and have access to a wide array of cameras and find benefits (and drawbacks) to all of them. I use whatever fits my needs, as do my family members who use them for a living.

[SINNER]

I had horrible issues with a few Nikon's. Luckily my wife shot with Canon cameras her whole life so the transition was less painful as she has bags full of lenses and flashes. I picked up a EOS 7D body with a dual battery pack grip for less than $700. It far exceeds my abilities.

[Pyzik]

I'll try to find it, I was just reading an article earlier this week saying that DSLRs are really reaching their peak for the recreational photographer. The market will likely be moving to mirror-less removable lens cameras.

They're smaller, lighter, are offering superb capabilities and are for the most part, cheaper.

You've got LOTS of reading to do. I feel you, I went through this process last year at this time. It took us until early February to make a decision.

EDIT: Here it is.
http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/articl.../dont-buy-dslr

Also, start watching/following Adorama on youtube.

I can't agree with this either.

Your 7 year old camera is probably outclassed by recent cell phone cameras in all honesty. You can still get decent pictures, in fact, I was able to get some decent results from a 9 year old one when I first started snapping pictures.

OP Start with this thread:

http://www.weaponevolution.com/forum...ht=photography

Lighting is key, try taking a picture on a cloudy day outdoors.

This. My new Note4 has a 13mp camera in it. With the right conditions, it's pumping out some really decent photos and great video. It's even got (good) stabilization.
Blows our old (4 years?) Sony 10mp camera out of the water. Not that the camera was that great to begin with but it was a couple hundred dollars.

[CarbonScoring]

I'm not sure why Nikon gets a bad rep...

Nikon would really have to screw up to get me to switch. I started with a D70 and have been using a D700 for years now. I'd love to upgrade to get video as well, but I have no need to switch from my D700.

[GOST]

My wife has a Sony NEX-5R and it's having issues, till that it has been great for her. Wouldn't recommend one now though.

[Computalotapus]

And this is why I love my camera phone stock app :) and use of external lighting and diffusers