I ask as I have been shooting on my phone for all my life and want to get a camera with a nice lens.<p>I'm curious what do users of HN use as their cameras? What do you like about it and do you want to get something else?
Nikon FM2.<p>I like that it's fully mechanical and built to a higher standard (and with higher quality materials) than cameras today. I enjoy film photography because it imposes a constraint on the creative process and makes you consciously pause before shooting. I find that without such constraints it's too easy to take a million garbage photos. For mundane everyday use I have an iPhone.<p>If I were to get something else it'd be a medium format camera with similar build quality and reliability.
I use an old Canon Rebel XTi (often with the 18-55mm kit lens) when I'm out hiking/trail running.<p>It is attached to my backpack or running vest shoulder strap using the Peak Design Capture Clip. To prevent bounce while running I use a simple velcro cinch strap.<p>While not particularly great at taking pictures with either a phone or camera, my camera photos are always much better quality than the ones I take with my phone, especially if I am looking at them on anything other than a phone.
Sony SLT A65 with f1.8/35mm, f2.8/85mm and f4.5-5.6/55-300mm (inexpensive lenses acquired one-at-a-time in that order; when I wasn't able to make the pictures I wanted with the lenses I had).<p><a href="https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA65/AA65A.HTM" rel="nofollow">https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA65/AA65A.HTM</a><p>I post-process raw files using <a href="https://rawtherapee.com/" rel="nofollow">https://rawtherapee.com/</a> so not really interested in filters/processing the camera provides.<p>I like otoh explicitly setting aperture / shutter / iso sensitivity; otoh the electronic viewfinder showing what will be recorded.<p>With $$$ to spend I'd replace it with one of the newer models — <a href="https://www.sony.com/electronics/interchangeable-lens-camera-products/t/interchangeable-lens-cameras" rel="nofollow">https://www.sony.com/electronics/interchangeable-lens-camera...</a><p>The basic technology has improved. Automatic following of eye-focus works a lot better. Autofocus micro-adjustment allows autofocus to be precisely fine-tuned for each lens used with the camera.<p>But the old stuff I have still works too well for me to upgrade.
I'm interested in portrait-shoots, and shooting animals. For that I use a Canon 5D MK III, with a MK II as a backup in case the main camera dies.<p>When I was looking around, years ago, at buying a DSLR there were a few options. Canon & Nikon were the obvious ones, along with Sony (who bought Minolta) and a few others. I went to a store and held them all - in the end the Canon felt most comfortable for my (smallish) hands.<p>I started out with a Canon Rebel, but you'll soon discover that when you buy a few lenses you get "locked in". When I'd spent £750+ on lens and wanted a better body it made no sense to switch to a Sony, Nikon, or other brand. So I bought the next body up, gradually getting to where I am today.<p>If you stick with the standard/stock/"free" lens you can switch around freely. But if you spend a few thousand over a few years you're almost never going to switch brand. Selling used lenses is pretty easy, and they mostly hold their value. But even so you need to be somewhat aware of the possible choices you're restricting yourself towards.
Fuji X100f.<p>Love it, mostly because I learned photography on manual film cameras and this camera gives me that nostalgic feelings. Besides it looks cool and it is a good conversation starter with strangers.<p>Image quality may not be the best though.
I had all sorts of cameras, but the Sony RX100 was my trustiest companion. When it broke after many years, I realised how much of a pain transferring, processing and sorting photos was, and never replaced it. Now I only use my smartphone, a Pixel 5.<p>I usually travel by motorcycle, so weight comes at a premium. I won't fish a bulky SLR out of my pannier every time I see a pretty landscape. The RX100 could fit in my motorcycle jacket pocket, so I wouldn't even need to get off the bike.<p>Yet, I prefer my smartphone, because it geotags and syncs my photos automatically. I can send them to people in an instant, as long as there's signal. That's worth a lot if you spend most of the day on the saddle, and have little time or energy left to process photos.<p>I like photography, but I don't like making my trips about photography. In any case, I find that keeping a travel journal works much better than taking a million pictures.
Panasonic LUMIX GX7.<p>It is a fantastic travel camera. It is in the form factor of a traditional rangefinder, with great ergonomic controls, and even at "only" a micro-4/3 lens still destroy even the best smartphone, while still fitting in my pocket with a prime.<p>The only thing that might replace it are some of these mirrorless full frame cameras being produced at reasonable prices (<$1K). They won't be as good at travel as m43 (due to lens size/weight if nothing else), but give you more photographic tools.<p>I'd never go non-mirrorless again, the Viewfinder is a second class citizen in mirrored/SLRs, lacking useful features like focus peaking, realtime histograms, preview of color modes, but most importantly requiring you to take your eye off of the Viewfinder to review your last shot (as opposed to being a one-stop-shop screen for everything).
I own more than half a dozen cameras and a couple of dozen lenses. It's more a matter of what other cameras don't I want.<p>Almost any dedicated camera will provide a different experience than a phone. Ergonomic design for single purpose. Psychologically because it only comes out to make pictures.<p>The easiest upgrade is a point and shoot with 10x or 12x zoom because it provides more reach. One with physical dials and physical buttons will provide a dedicated tactile experience. It's the simplest thing that might work and has the important quality of being easy to take with you.<p>To me, the biggest difference between cameras is whether you hold them to your eye when making pictures (or not). Making pictures with the camera to your eye is "looking through the camera" versus "looking at the camera." Neither is better. But they are different.[1]<p>Holding the camera to your eye facilitates tight composition of moving subjects because of hand-eye coordination. It facilitates the use of longer focal lengths (narrower field of view) to capture action. The disadvantage is the tendency to make pictures from eye level rather than more interesting angles.<p>The easiest way to try a camera that can be held to the eye is a used Canon/Nikon entry level DSLR with a kit lens for a couple of hundred dollars. If you like it, there's more than two orders of magnitude headroom you can spend for better cameras and nicer lenses.<p>To me, fallacious sunk cost reasoning is about the only mistake you can make buying a camera. Your next camera is just your next camera not your last one. The more pictures you make, the more you will understand which pictures you can't make and being able to make different pictures is the reason to look for new gear (unless you are getting paid making the same pictures "better" usually isn't a good reason).<p>[1] It's not quite either or. Cameras with waist level finders sort of sit in between. A tilting screen camera at 90 degrees can capture some of the experience but not all of it.
I have a Pentax K-1000 in pristine condition that was given to me by my grandfather, that one is my favorite. I have quite a few others, Pentax, Minolta, and Yashica that I like.<p>For digital, I have a Google Pixel phone and the camera takes good quality photos.<p>For a dedicated digital camera, I really like a lot of the compact mirrorless cameras out there. I like the Nikons and have some experience with the Sony Alpha cameras and have few complaints. Usually complaints boil down to how a person relates to the interface and whether or not the camera has the features a person wants.
My advice having gone through this: buy a low end, but well-reviewed DSLR with the kit lens, to start.<p>Learn the fundamentals of a DSLR (aperture, f-stop, and all that jazz).<p>Gradually grow from there as your abilities improve.<p>I thought I'd be buy a DSLR and take awesome photos and while I did by accident produce some stunning shots, there's a learning curve.<p>Also, if you have any interest in space, try astrophotography. It really helped me learn the challenges of ISO, focus, aperture, etc.
Sony A7III. It has been great. The camera market has really had to keep up with smart phones so there are a lot of good options. Depending on budget, I would look at the Fuji mirrorless cameras (I think X100F, XT3, etc?). Maybe even a Ricoh GRIII if you're into travel, street, or architecture. As others have said, it will depend on what you want to shoot.
Have quite a extensive Fuji equipment, XPro2:s and about 10-12 lenses from 9mm to 400mm. But since I got a Ricoh GR3 almost two years ago I rarely bring the Fuji gear out, the GR3 is brilliant and can always be with me. It has some shortcomings, battery life, not weathersealed, autofocus in poor light could be better, but it is still my absolute favourite.
I have a Nikon D5100, with the 18-55, 55-200, and 35mm lenses. The main advantage of a DSLR is getting low light exposures that are in focus, often without the need for a tripod. Looking directly through the lens helps eliminate distractions.<p>Anything more than 6 megapixels is fluff, unless you <i>really</i> like cropping away most of your image. Back in the day, I bought a Nikon D40, instead of the D40x because it had <i>fewer</i> megapixels (but the same size sensor, which meant each pixel on the D40 was bigger, gathered more light, thus was better able to deal with low light). I wore the shutter out after about 46,000 pictures.<p>I take pictures of things like cities, buildings, trees, etc... I'm not very good at portraits.<p>I still have some things up on flickr at <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/145132971@N05/" rel="nofollow">https://www.flickr.com/photos/145132971@N05/</a>
The camera's I own probably won't be helpful to you deciding on something for yourself. I have been a gear head since I was a teenager and I have used all sorts. For the last decade I have worked elusively with film because I want to enjoy it while it is here to enjoy. I wouldn't recommend that for most because it is expensive and can be frustrating when you don't get good results.<p>If you want to make the jump to something more capable I recommend skipping all the stuff in the middle like mirrorless, 4/3, or high end point and shoot. Nothing wrong with these if it is what you want. However, I recommend you get a digital SLR. Decide on a budget. If it is small, buy used. Heck if it is big it still doesn't hurt to buy used. Especially lenses and tripods. I have never purchased a new camera, lens, or tripod.<p>Prioritize your purchase in this order:<p>- A book about the photo style that interests you.<p>- Lens or lenses. This is the most important thing. It doesn't matter how awesome your camera is if you are sticking low quality glass on it.<p>- A good tripod you can tolerate carrying for extended periods of time. The number one thing you can do to take better pictures is to use a tripod. For most, tripods are an afterthought.<p>- A digital SLR body.<p>I recommend this order because lenses are very long term investments as are tripods. They can last a lifetime. Bodies churn constantly and you can always get a better one later.<p>If I were going to buy a DSLR today, most likely I would choose Nikon (but I'm already invested in Nikon glass). I would probably go for a D750 (D700 if money is tight, or a newer variant if I'm feeling flush) and a 50mm f/1.4 AF-D. If I wanted to shoot portraits an 85mm or so would be my next lens. Otherwise I really like the 35mm f/2 AF-D for landscapes and general use. All of this said, I don't think you can go wrong choosing from any of the major manufacturers. Favor full frame over crop sensors.
Recently got a used Fujifilm X-T20 and love it. It can be full auto or full manual, and I like that aperture and shutter speed can be changed with knobs instead of touchscreen (unlike the otherwise excellent Sony mirrorless cameras). Also it looks retro, which is great.
I have a Nikon Z50 and Z5. I adore them both but I think I like the Z50 just a little bit more. If only it had image stabilization.<p>It's pretty much impossible to make a truly bad choice right now by buying a recently released camera from the major brands. They're all top quality but trade blows over minutiae. See if you can rent or just hold a few different bodies in your price range and pick which one feels the best in your hand. The more you feel comfortable with the camera the more you'll use it and the better you'll get at making photos.<p>Happy to chat about photography anytime. Contact info in my profile if you so desire!
I have an old 70s 35mm Canon EF. It's fine. A little time consuming to develop the negatives and then scan them. Of course you can end up with grain, dust marks, etc if you're not great at it.<p>Most of the time I just use my phone.
I used to have a Canon Powershot for taking photos and videos before I had a smartphone with a good camera. Once I got an iPhone 7, carrying around a camera with comparable image quality just wasn't worth it anymore. I have an 8 right now, and the only cameras that substantially better quality cost about as much as a 12, which also has a good camera. Unless you are willing to splurge, the superior battery life, size, and utility of your phone will probably outclass any camera you are looking at.
What do you currently take photos of? What would you like to take photos of? What do you think is deficient in the photos you currently take that you'd like to improve upon with a dedicated camera?<p>To answer your actual question, I have a Nikon D810 with a 1.4f 50mm lens that I adore, but it's expensive and overkill for most purposes.<p>It's amazing for taking pictures of dancers in poorly lit rooms without being forced to use a flash.<p>95%+ of the time I use my phone just because it's a camera I always have with me though.
I use a Sony Alpha 65 from 2011.
I am not upgrading it because I am very happy with my lenses (I tried a lot of lenses and now use only 2 most of the time) and it has a GPS to tag photos which newer version do not have.<p>I dont understand why high end cameras don't have a GPS when a 100€ smartphone does.
I have a +10 years old Canon EOS 400D, i was so curious about photography then my dad bought that in early 2009, never wanted to change the machine but i changed the lens once and i can still shoot some ridiculously great photos with it.
I have a Nikon P900, the zoom is insane. <a href="https://youtu.be/63t0TwBJ_lk" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/63t0TwBJ_lk</a>