camera help and advice please!!! TY ;)

[pixeemom]

So dh told me I need a real good camera and to stop using my iPhone, the horror

, lol, anyway if anyone can help this would be great!!!
I'm looking for one that won't break the bank (saving for Disney trip) and the main feature I would like is the kinds of pictures that u focus on a person/figure whatever and it's sorta blurry in the background, hths

Any help is greatly appreciated!!
Tia
Danielle

 

[Clamman73]

Do you have a price range in mind?

 

[pixeemom]

Do you have a price range in mind?

Hmmm not sure I mean I know they aren't cheap but I'm hoping no more the 500.00 if I can get a decent one for less that's what I'd be aiming for Tia

 

[KeithVH]

Oh boy, loaded question. The whole background out of focus thing is a little over-rated. Technically, it can be achieved with almost any camera - it is a function of the distance from camera to subject, subject distance relative to the background, length of the lens, and the aperture setting (the hole that lets the light in). It just happens to be easier in some cameras than others, largely due to aperture settings. Which pretty much translates into many more $$$.

It's easier for less expensive cameras to have smaller apertures (the f-stop). Represented by a bigger "f" number. To get a smaller number, which makes the out of focus background easier, that takes more glass and more money.

You don't need a DSLR for this either. You can still get some point and shoots with a "fast" lens. You are looking for a camera with something like an f2.0 - f2.8 max aperture. The smaller the number, the easier it will be for you to be close to your subject and have the background closer to the subject, and still render the background out of focus.

Now, to your budget. Do not agonize over this. Even 5 years ago it would be a different story. But today, for that price point, any camera you buy is going to be pretty much equivalent to any other camera you could buy for features and image quality. If you have the opportunity, go to a camera store and see how they feel in your hands. If you really want to research, go to DPReview.com. You'll get some info overload but it's one of the better places to help find what you want. It also wouldn't hurt to read the older threads here for some examples of recommendations. There are many people here who really know their stuff and lots of knowledge they have shared with others on this same question.

 

[pixeemom]

Oh boy, loaded question. The whole background out of focus thing is a little over-rated. Technically, it can be achieved with almost any camera - it is a function of the distance from camera to subject, subject distance relative to the background, length of the lens, and the aperture setting (the hole that lets the light in). It just happens to be easier in some cameras than others, largely due to aperture settings. Which pretty much translates into many more $$$.

It's easier for less expensive cameras to have smaller apertures (the f-stop). Represented by a bigger "f" number. To get a smaller number, which makes the out of focus background easier, that takes more glass and more money.

You don't need a DSLR for this either. You can still get some point and shoots with a "fast" lens. You are looking for a camera with something like an f2.0 - f2.8 max aperture. The smaller the number, the easier it will be for you to be close to your subject and have the background closer to the subject, and still render the background out of focus.

Now, to your budget. Do not agonize over this. Even 5 years ago it would be a different story. But today, for that price point, any camera you buy is going to be pretty much equivalent to any other camera you could buy for features and image quality. If you have the opportunity, go to a camera store and see how they feel in your hands. If you really want to research, go to DPReview.com. You'll get some info overload but it's one of the better places to help find what you want. It also wouldn't hurt to read the older threads here for some examples of recommendations. There are many people here who really know their stuff and lots of knowledge they have shared with others on this same question.

awesome thank you very much!!!!

 

[NowInc]

Also keep in mind (and I don't wish to come off as mean), a camera itself does not make an image. You will need to know how to use it. The effect you are looking for is called "bokeh" (or shallow depth of field) and isn't too difficult, but you may not have much luck achieving it in certain situations (such as if its really bright outside)...all depending on the camera you get.

The good news is that any entry level DSLR can do this...as the body isn't the key factor..its the lens. The most common used lenses to get this effect are usually a 35mm or a 50mm (however any lens can do it) due to their range (and they are fairly cheap).

I will also say this...photography is in no way "cheap". It may start off that way, but it gets VERY expensive before you know it

 

[pixeemom]

Also keep in mind (and I don't wish to come off as mean), a camera itself does not make an image. You will need to know how to use it. The effect you are looking for is called "bokeh" (or shallow depth of field) and isn't too difficult, but you may not have much luck achieving it in certain situations (such as if its really bright outside)...all depending on the camera you get.

The good news is that any entry level DSLR can do this...as the body isn't the key factor..its the lens. The most common used lenses to get this effect are usually a 35mm or a 50mm (however any lens can do it) due to their range (and they are fairly cheap).

I will also say this...photography is in no way "cheap". It may start off that way, but it gets VERY expensive before you know it

Thank you for your help!!!! ack who would have thought taking nice pictures would be so hard lol lol

 

[pixeemom]

Oh boy, loaded question. The whole background out of focus thing is a little over-rated. Technically, it can be achieved with almost any camera - it is a function of the distance from camera to subject, subject distance relative to the background, length of the lens, and the aperture setting (the hole that lets the light in). It just happens to be easier in some cameras than others, largely due to aperture settings. Which pretty much translates into many more $$$.

It's easier for less expensive cameras to have smaller apertures (the f-stop). Represented by a bigger "f" number. To get a smaller number, which makes the out of focus background easier, that takes more glass and more money.

You don't need a DSLR for this either. You can still get some point and shoots with a "fast" lens. You are looking for a camera with something like an f2.0 - f2.8 max aperture. The smaller the number, the easier it will be for you to be close to your subject and have the background closer to the subject, and still render the background out of focus.

Now, to your budget. Do not agonize over this. Even 5 years ago it would be a different story. But today, for that price point, any camera you buy is going to be pretty much equivalent to any other camera you could buy for features and image quality. If you have the opportunity, go to a camera store and see how they feel in your hands. If you really want to research, go to DPReview.com. You'll get some info overload but it's one of the better places to help find what you want. It also wouldn't hurt to read the older threads here for some examples of recommendations. There are many people here who really know their stuff and lots of knowledge they have shared with others on this same question.

Thank you!!!!!!

 

[Santa Raccoon 77]

Also it's worth bearing in mind that the same effect can be achieved back home with photo-editing software.

 

[thomas998]

How large of a camera do you want to carry around. Because you have two options available, the easiest one for getting your blurry background would be a DSLR type camera and then you purchase a fast lens... But the downside is that it will not be that small and someone that is used to using a iphone isn't likely to enjoy having a DSLR hanging around their neck while on a trip to Disney. If you are like my wife you likely want something that you can easily put in your purse and carry... in which case I would suggest you look at a Sony RX100M III, it would give you the ability to get the blurry you are looking for but the downside is that it would cost about $800.... Now if you want a cheaper option for blurry but with more limitations there is a RX100M II that can do blurry at the wide side of the zoom but loses that ability as you zoom in. There is a higher end RX100M IV that would also give you 4k video and other add ons like super slow motion... but it would hit your wallet for about 1000... But those are your best options if you want a camera you can easily put in your purse.

The other option is just about any DSLR out there right now plus an add on 50mm f1.8 lens would give you all the blurry you would likely want... downside is that a 50mm on a entry level DSLR will behave like a 75mm lens so you might have to stand further back than you want to get everything in the picture you are taking.

 

[NowInc]

The other option is just about any DSLR out there right now plus an add on 50mm f1.8 lens would give you all the blurry you would likely want... downside is that a 50mm on a entry level DSLR will behave like a 75mm lens so you might have to stand further back than you want to get everything in the picture you are taking.

For a crop sensor I would always suggest a 35mm. Same price and less "Tight"

 

[thomas998]

For a crop sensor I would always suggest a 35mm. Same price and less "Tight"

Good point.... wasn't think about that but you can probably pick a 35mm 1.8 up for about the same price as a 50mm 1.8

 

[afb28]

Not to make this conversation too technical, but if/when you get a faster lens you are going to need to know how to make sure it shoots around f2.8. If you are still in auto, it's probably gonna jump around so if it goes up to f8 then you're not going to achieve that look. So learning Manual or using Aperture priority are going to make sure it doesn't hop around on you.

I also wouldn't recommend shooting below f2.8 for people just because of how narrow the focus plane is beyond that. Usually lower than that should only be used for dark rides or very specific artistic reasons.

 

[thomas998]

Not to make this conversation too technical, but if/when you get a faster lens you are going to need to know how to make sure it shoots around f2.8. If you are still in auto, it's probably gonna jump around so if it goes up to f8 then you're not going to achieve that look. So learning Manual or using Aperture priority are going to make sure it doesn't hop around on you.

I also wouldn't recommend shooting below f2.8 for people just because of how narrow the focus plane is beyond that. Usually lower than that should only be used for dark rides or very specific artistic reasons.

Actually it depends on the size of the sensor as to whether f2.8 will be fast enough. The smaller the sensor the lower the f-stop number you will need to achieve the blurry background. I can shoot f1.4 on a full frame and it is in the very narrow category, but if I use an adapter and put it on a m4/3 the f1.4 is very usable... if the OP decides to go with a point and shoot with a small sensor a f1.8 will be about as slow as you can go and get good blurries a f2.8 would be too clear.

As for using "manual" or "aperture priority" I would highly suggest the OP learn "manual" because the "aperture priority" will often force the camera to use a shutter speed that is so slow you'll get motion blur and camera shake, by going full manual you will often get under exposed photos but then if you are shooting raw you can usually pull a couple of stops out in post processing to make the under exposed photos acceptable.

 

[afb28]

Actually it depends on the size of the sensor as to whether f2.8 will be fast enough. The smaller the sensor the lower the f-stop number you will need to achieve the blurry background. I can shoot f1.4 on a full frame and it is in the very narrow category, but if I use an adapter and put it on a m4/3 the f1.4 is very usable... if the OP decides to go with a point and shoot with a small sensor a f1.8 will be about as slow as you can go and get good blurries a f2.8 would be too clear.

f2.8 on asp-c is not too clear at all. A lot of it depends on the distance between you and the subject and the distance from the subject to the background.

For pictures of people, I wouldn't recommend going lower than 2.8 on an APS-C. 2.8 on full frame for me is still a tad narrow if it's a group shot. If it's a solo person then 2.8 is fine but it's not worth trying to create a leveled vertical plane when you can just bump up to 3.5 and still get a nice blur to the out of focus areas.

I've shot enough weddings with both APS-C and full frame where I know i'm not going to let it dip below those, unless it's some detail artistic shot, like the ring or flowers (or in disney terms the statues by the fountains in the hub).

As for using "manual" or "aperture priority" I would highly suggest the OP learn "manual" because the "aperture priority" will often force the camera to use a shutter speed that is so slow you'll get motion blur and camera shake, by going full manual you will often get under exposed photos but then if you are shooting raw you can usually pull a couple of stops out in post processing to make the under exposed photos acceptable.

I shoot everything in Manual and have never used Aperture, but for some people it's overwhelming so it's just an alternative.

 

[thomas998]

f2.8 on asp-c is not too clear at all. A lot of it depends on the distance between you and the subject and the distance from the subject to the background.

For pictures of people, I wouldn't recommend going lower than 2.8 on an APS-C. 2.8 on full frame for me is still a tad narrow if it's a group shot. If it's a solo person then 2.8 is fine but it's not worth trying to create a leveled vertical plane when you can just bump up to 3.5 and still get a nice blur to the out of focus areas.

I've shot enough weddings with both APS-C and full frame where I know i'm not going to let it dip below those, unless it's some detail artistic shot, like the ring or flowers (or in disney terms the statues by the fountains in the hub).

I shoot everything in Manual and have never used Aperture, but for some people it's overwhelming so it's just an alternative.

I would agree with the APS-C and Full Frame... but with the budget the OP has there is a chance she might end up with a point and shoot... I know I have a point and shoot with a small sensor (1/1.63) which can give you reasonable blurries with when its wide open at 1.8 but if you stop it down to 2.8 those blurries are only slight... Of course what we may both be missing here is what the OP is looking for in terms of bokeh, what you consider blurry enough vs what I consider blurry enough... I'm willing to bet we all have different ideas of what we consider the optimum amount of blurry... for me if its a portrait shot I like to keep the focus solely on the face and will sometimes even sacrifice some sharpness in the subjects hair in favor of extreme softness of the background but that's just my preference some would prefer to be able to tell the sex of the person in the background and only soften them up.

 

[WillCAD]

So dh told me I need a real good camera and to stop using my iPhone, the horror, lol, anyway if anyone can help this would be great!!!
I'm looking for one that won't break the bank (saving for Disney trip) and the main feature I would like is the kinds of pictures that u focus on a person/figure whatever and it's sorta blurry in the background, hths

Any help is greatly appreciated!!
Tia
Danielle

You've gotten some good technical advice on how to acheive the bokeh effect. But it's probably all gibberish to you, so the first thing I'm going to recommend is that you do buy yourself a book. Yup. A book.

Buying a better camera won't help you much if you don't learn the skills needed to operate it. It would be like buying a new motorcycle, but not knowing how to ride one - just because you can ride a bicycle (phone camera), doesn't mean you can ride a Harley (DSLR).

A book on the basics of photography, such as one of the Dummies books, will help you to improve the photos you take with any device, even your phone cam. For example: The Rule of Thirds, which is a photographer's rule of thumb stating that a photo tends to look most balanced if you divide your photo into thirds (horizontally and vertically) and your main subjects line up with one of the dividing lines. How do you do that? Well, in your iPhone camera app, there is a setting to turn on "gridlines". Turn them on and you'll see a tic-tac-toe board appear on the screen. When taking a photo of a person or vertical object, line the object up with one of the vertical lines. Line up horizons, ceilings, or other long horizontal lines with one of the horizontal guidelines. Bingo! You just learned the Rule of Thirds, and your photos will start to look more balanced.

Other nuggets of wisdom like the ROT can be found in almost any photography book, as well as more technical information regarding exposure (how much light strikes the sensor) and composition (how the stuff in your photo is arranged within the frame). Exposure and composition are the basics of photography - learn those skills, and you can apply them to any camera.

As for a specific camera recommendation, I'd recommend that you consider either a point-and-shoot (pocket) camera with manual controls, or what's called a "bridge camera", which is an automatic camera which looks kinda like an SLR, but has a non-removable lens. I recently bought a Canon SX50HS bridge cam, and I consider it a great beginner's camera. It's lightweight, has great image quality and some very nice advanced features, shoots terrific HD video, and has an unbeLIEVably long zoom. It retails for about $350. It's getting a little hard to find, because it's a discontinued model; the SX60 came out earlier this year. B&H Photo, Adorama, and Walmart all have them. I got mine from BestBuy, but I don't see it on their web site any more; you can check your local Best Buy to see if they still have any, but they'll probably only have the SX60 in stock.
Canon Powershot SX50 HS on B&H Photo web site

If you buy a new camera, budget for some accessories right off the bat: A padded camera bag for travel and storage; at least two 4gb or 8gb memory cards (many small cards are better than one big card, in case of loss or damage you don't lose all your photos); a spare battery (I get most of my spares from StirnlinTek); a better carry strap than the one that comes with the camera; and maybe a wrist or hand strap. Also, a quality microfiber lens cleaning cloth is a must.

But get the book first.

 

[PhotoDave219]

You've gotten some good technical advice on how to acheive the bokeh effect. But it's probably all gibberish to you, so the first thing I'm going to recommend is that you do buy yourself a book. Yup. A book.

Buying a better camera won't help you much if you don't learn the skills needed to operate it. It would be like buying a new motorcycle, but not knowing how to ride one - just because you can ride a bicycle (phone camera), doesn't mean you can ride a Harley (DSLR).

A book on the basics of photography, such as one of the Dummies books, will help you to improve the photos you take with any device, even your phone cam. For example: The Rule of Thirds, which is a photographer's rule of thumb stating that a photo tends to look most balanced if you divide your photo into thirds (horizontally and vertically) and your main subjects line up with one of the dividing lines. How do you do that? Well, in your iPhone camera app, there is a setting to turn on "gridlines". Turn them on and you'll see a tic-tac-toe board appear on the screen. When taking a photo of a person or vertical object, line the object up with one of the vertical lines. Line up horizons, ceilings, or other long horizontal lines with one of the horizontal guidelines. Bingo! You just learned the Rule of Thirds, and your photos will start to look more balanced.

Other nuggets of wisdom like the ROT can be found in almost any photography book, as well as more technical information regarding exposure (how much light strikes the sensor) and composition (how the stuff in your photo is arranged within the frame). Exposure and composition are the basics of photography - learn those skills, and you can apply them to any camera.

As for a specific camera recommendation, I'd recommend that you consider either a point-and-shoot (pocket) camera with manual controls, or what's called a "bridge camera", which is an automatic camera which looks kinda like an SLR, but has a non-removable lens. I recently bought a Canon SX50HS bridge cam, and I consider it a great beginner's camera. It's lightweight, has great image quality and some very nice advanced features, shoots terrific HD video, and has an unbeLIEVably long zoom. It retails for about $350. It's getting a little hard to find, because it's a discontinued model; the SX60 came out earlier this year. B&H Photo, Adorama, and Walmart all have them. I got mine from BestBuy, but I don't see it on their web site any more; you can check your local Best Buy to see if they still have any, but they'll probably only have the SX60 in stock.
Canon Powershot SX50 HS on B&H Photo web site

If you buy a new camera, budget for some accessories right off the bat: A padded camera bag for travel and storage; at least two 4gb or 8gb memory cards (many small cards are better than one big card, in case of loss or damage you don't lose all your photos); a spare battery (I get most of my spares from StirnlinTek); a better carry strap than the one that comes with the camera; and maybe a wrist or hand strap. Also, a quality microfiber lens cleaning cloth is a must.

But get the book first.

National Geographic Field Guide for Photography. second edition.

Best beginners book out there.

 

[KeithVH]

National Geographic Field Guide for Photography. second edition.

Best beginners book out there.

What he said.

 

[rreading]

As one of the previous posters mentioned, you can go deep down the rabbit hole in term of cost. I went in on a nice APS-C (crop sensor) Canon with a couple of nice lenses and often found that I preferred my iPhone photos (I like the focus sharp and it's easy to get things out of focus if you've a large aperture). Granted, many of these are of moving family on moving rides, but still....

I've doubled down and love my L-lenses on my full frame camera and treasure the results, but $$$

Don't be surprised if you find that you iPhone is still your go-to.