What do you know about Cameras? Should I buy one?

I'm thinking about buying a good digital camera. For quite a while I've been using cell phones as a camera, I want more image quality and versatility. My last real camera was a Panasonic Lumix DMC TZ5, a nice point and shoot 10 years ago. I had some basic photography classes long ago, but have forgotten much of the technical details. I've never had a DSLR and don't need a high-end full feature camera.

What I'm looking for is a camera that can take quick shots with minimal set-up, but can also give me more advanced options for a variety of lighting, depth of field, exposure, and an available zoom or telephoto lens for wildlife. I don't want anything bulky and fragile, but can't get the features I want in a compact pocket camera. I'm expecting to spend in the ball-park of $500.

How about a Sony Alpha a6000? Why: 24.3 MP, WiFi, good image quality, good lenses, and relatively easy to use. It's been out for over 4 years now and still stands out as a good value. Any opinions good or bad? Any good alternatives to compare in a similar price range?

The biggest problem I have with most digital cameras is having to go through menu hell to change basic settings. I've not used the Sony, but by the look of it, it's all menu-driven. Megapixels don't matter at all unless you're printing big.

Have a look at the Fuji X-mount line. They are more traditionally set up, and some lenses even have a proper aperture ring on them. Having tried a few digital cameras, Fuji is the one I stuck with (partially for the control layout, partially for the unique qualities of the X-Trans sensor). I might even be persuaded to sell my low shutter count X-E1 body (been considering jumping up to the X-E2).

With the pics that the average phone can take nowadays, I don't even know why there is a Camera industry?  Unless you have the time to stage and light the shot, just stick with the phone.

Now, if you are doing some distance work, then yeah, your inner paparazzi is going to need some hardware.

In reply to NOHOME :

I'd agree with you that the better phone cameras made the point and shoot compact cameras obsolete unless you need longer lenses.

There's still a good reason for using interchangeable lens cameras, though.

I'd second 02Pilot's recommendation to look at the Fuji X series. I went from a Nikon D200 plus assorted lenses to an X-E2 with a couple of basic zoom lenses (plus a recently acquired 35mm f/2) and I really like it.

I have a moto z play for a phone, and this intrigues me:

https://www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-mods/hasselblad-true-zoom

yes, it just connects to the back of a cell phone via magnet, and communicates with the phone through the built in connector. Seems to me like the best of both worlds.

NOHOME said:

With the pics that the average phone can take nowadays, I don't even know why there is a Camera industry?  Unless you have the time to stage and light the shot, just stick with the phone.

 

Now, if you are doing some distance work, then yeah, your inner paparazzi is going to need some hardware.

A high rez photo taken through a garbage lens is a high resolution picture of garbage. I'll use my phone for snapshots, but for anything I want to view on anything other than a phone screen I grab the DSLR or the 4/3. Interchangeable lenses are good, but really want you want is good glass. Lets me shoot beautiful landscapes, sharp motorsports and clear product shots.

If you're starting from scratch, look into the Micro 4/3 stuff. DSLRs are sized around backwards compatiblity with 35mm film, 4/3 is designed around digital sensors and is smaller and lighter.

For a car analogy - cameraphones are the all-season tire of the photography world. Not terrible, but not really good at anything. Well, other than selfies.

I guess "point and shoot" just isn't a thing I do. If I'm going to take a photo, I'm going to either take a crap one as a quick reminder or I'm going to take a good one.

When people ask me questions like this I tell them to look at it from a different direction. I agree with most of the comments above the cell phone, and compact camera images are vastly improved and generate very high quality snap shots. Once you get away from that, want to take better pictures and start thinking removable lenses the that is where I would put my focus, the lenses. 

The zoom kit lenses come with most DSLR cameras are junk, and good lenses can cost much more than the camera. The nice thing is high quality glass can last almost forever so changing the sensor it is mounted to becomes an issue of what mount is on the lens.  My first DSLR camera was .9 MP (yes less than one), and cost $13,000 but used a Canon lens mount. The camera is now worthless but i still have the lens today. This generally leads to picking between the major camera manufactures, with Canon and Nikon being the most common and therefore having the biggest selection of quality lenses available especially on the used market.

Once you pick a lens mount then you can find a camera that fits in your hand and has controls you find easiest to use, as others said the megapixel count is almost irrelevant, this made a difference when you went from 2 mp to 5 mp, but I doubt many can tell the difference between 12mp and 24mp as there are so many other factors in making a good image at that level.

I have been building digital camera systems to take pictures on amusement park rides for 30 years and have worked in both Nikon and Canon shops, I like both camera brands and one will make a better camera then the other will come out with something new. Right now I use Canon and have a small collection of Canon lenses so that is the sensor I choose, most of the entry level cameras take great pictures and I would not be worried about buying low shutter count used cameras. They are all a little different so do a bit of research and you can find out where in the menu you can look up the shutter count.

Good luck with your search, and as always with internet experts, this advice is worth about half of what you are paying for it. So in the end get something that fits your needs, you like how the controls work, and most important something you will go out and use, then who cares what the rest of the experts say.

That's why I was suggesting a Micro 4/3 if he's starting from scratch. No legacy lenses to deal with, and there are used 4/3 lenses on the market now. IIRC they are manufacturer agnostic, no Canon vs Nikon vs Olympus. You can get adapters to put SLR lenses on them, but they're easier to carry around if you use the 4/3 stuff. And if you're not carrying your good camera because it's too big and bulky, you might as well not have one.

BTW, I keep reading this topic title as "What do you know about Cameros?"

Keith Tanner said:

BTW, I keep reading this topic title as "What do you know about Cameros?"

So, Kieth, just how much time do you spend on Craigslist?

I got my wife the moto z and it takes great photos. It is no dslr (she has one of these as well) but for her it has worked out really well as she is a bit of a camera snob but at the same time does not want to drag her Nikon around with her all the time. 

I'm not much (any) of photography expert, but I went through this myself a couple years ago.  After much research, I went micro 4/3 with the comfort of knowing my 'photography' will never be limited by my camera.  I spent about $500 (clearance sale) for a well reviewed outgoing model that came with two acceptably reviewed lenses.  My only real disappointment is that my cellphone still often takes better indoor kid pics with less effort, and the standard flash on it is less than impressive when trying to do so...Although I'm sure operator error (inexperience) is also at least partly to blame. 

If I could do it over I would've went M4/3. 

I only have 3 lenses, a 35mm F1.8, a kit 18-70, and an older Sigma 50-150 f2.8.

The problem has come that I just don't need the "power" of the DSLR most of the time, and when I do it's because I want to zoom in one something. 

Part of this is because the color rendering and editing available on modern phones is just so freakin good that my iphone pictures are easier to make look "wow" than my DSLR photos. 

Now, if I had bluetooth or wifi, I could send photos to my phone then edit them and post to say instagram or facebook and get the same "pop" that the iphone has, but with better quality.

I sold the DSLR because I was tired of lugging lenses around when traveling. Went cellphone only for a while but it's really limited for the creative/landscape/ zoom territories. I tried a smaller Panasonic a few years ago and it was OK but after a couple trips I went back to the cellphone. Just recently I bought an amazon warehouse deal Panasonic FZ-70 for $160. I've only used it for one trip but I think I like it. Definitely softer than the DSLR and not as fast but I think it's going to be a good compromise. 

In reply to Enyar :

The Panasonic FZ-70 actually looks pretty good to me other than not having interchangeable lenses.  Looks like you got a great price. I'll be watching the Warehouse Deals...

In reply to ...a couple others:

Focusing on the lenses makes sense. The Micro 4/3 cameras have caught my interest. I hadn't heard of them before. Any recommendations in the $400 - $600 range with a lens? A quick look shows the standard is primarily used by  Olympus and Panasonic - Is it going broader than that?

In reply to 02Pilot:

I saw the Fuji X cameras when I started looking. Liked them a lot, but they were out of my price range if it included a lens. Regarding menus, I need to figure out what works best for me. It seems that there's a choice of menu-driven with minimal controls, or lots of controls (buttons, dials, & switches) to minimize the menu. I think it will all come down to having it in my hand rather than just shopping online.

Thanks all for the discussion.

If you're willing to go back a year or two, you can usually get some pretty good deals on DSLRs or 4/3 cameras. My Olympus PL2 is about 5 years old now and still takes great pics - especially since I got a viewfinder (great for bright outdoors shots) and some non-kit lenses. It's not the new hotness, but you can pick up the body for under $200.

I put some of the specs I'm looking for into a search with Amazon and some Yi brand (China) cameras came up. Looking at it further reminded me of the early Kia and Hyundai cars made for the US market. Packed with lots of features at an amazing low price point, but when you look closely at the details, nothing is quite right and overall quality is terrible. Maybe in another 10 years....

Look at KEH for used gear. Digital cameras plummet in value like Euro luxury cars. KEH guarantees everything, so there's no real risk (unlike the broader used camera market).

The only thing I know about cameras is every time I wish I had one on me all I have is my phone. 

In reply to EastCoastMojo :

The best camera is the one you have with you when something photo-worthy happens.  For most people, that's a phone.  I would certainly consider camera quality when making a smartphone purchase, if I actually owned a smartphone.

I have a Panasonic GX1 micro 4/3 that I used lightly for a few years. It's a great camera but I prefer my Fuji X100 so that gets used much more. 

Ive been thinking of selling it on the auction site but have been too lazy  

If you're interested in it let me know. I have a few lenses too for it. An Olympus 45mm 1.8 and maybe some others - a 20mm pancake? I'll have to look. 

I was shopping 2 years ago and bought a Nikon D3300.  I looked at everything. DSLR, mirrorless, Bridge and P&S. Of the entry level DSLRs, I thought it was much nicer than cannon and pentax. I also thought it was a better value at the time than the 4/3 systems. I also wanted interchangeable lenses, so a bridge and P&S was out. If I bought today I would go bridge instead. 

Robbie said:

I have a moto z play for a phone, and this intrigues me:

https://www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-mods/hasselblad-true-zoom

 

yes, it just connects to the back of a cell phone via magnet, and communicates with the phone through the built in connector. Seems to me like the best of both worlds.

I was super hyped about that. Like converting from iphone for it. Then I researched it. It is a hasselblad only in name and the orange shutter button. The glass is good, but the image sensor is lacking. Most Moto Z phones have better sensors in the built in cameras. Ultimately it is an overpriced point and shoot that only works with that one line of phone. And I still want it. Lord help me if there was an equivalent for the iPhone.

I went ahead and got the Sony a6000. A good package deal with extra battery, case, 64 GB card, .... When I started looking at some quality used ones, I realized that built-in WiFi is important to me for convenience and a lot of older models didn't have it. Cell phones have spoiled me in that respect.  Another big decider for me is shutter lag. I have missed a lot of perfect moments with my cell phone. At 0.15 seconds and 11 fps still, I think that's going to fill my need. After I get it figured out, I'll check KEH for some glass and look into a 4/3 lens adapter for it.

I'm a Nikon man from the way back time of 1985.  Cell phones are amazing and that's what I use 99% of the time for simple stuff, but if I'm needing more I have my trusty D5100.  The lenses are the main draw, the ISO change from 100 up to well over 64000 when needed, multiple focus and metering abilities (like metering the lighting on a tiny spot on an instrument I'm trying to photograph for a work brochure, while it's on a solid black table)...

For a few hundred bucks you can get a decent kit from any of the big names today (Nikon, Canon, etc).  If you're interested in actual photography, this is the next level above cell phones.