Camera Advice

• 

  Cheeper on 10/11/2014 - 15:27

  I am assuming your daughter is not a child but maybe a young adult?
  Most young ones prefer to have the convenience of a camera in their mobile phone these days and some of them deliver fantastic results.

  Otherwise… for durability and picture quality I find Canon to be the best. Actual model would depend on what features you want.

• 

  no47 on 10/11/2014 - 15:34

  +1

  she's 13…going on 25! She has been using her iphone for pics but has gotten very arty of late and is really getting into the whole photography thing. I want to get her a decent-ish starter camera so she can explore a bit more…..possibly that will be with the camera club at school.

  • 

    Cheeper on 10/11/2014 - 15:41

    +1

    Ok.. Makes suggestions a bit more targeted. :-)
    I will stick with my original recommendation of Canon with maybe an option for Nikon??

    If she will be getting "into" photography then a DSLR would be the way to go. Some of those start close to your budget if you shop around. Avoid the deals that offer the two lens deal, the second lens would be rarely used, if ever.

    If you want to have a manufacturers warranty and maintain your consumer rights then do not buy from overseas supplier or sellers that sell "grey market" stock. They usually have no warranty contrary to what they advertise.

    Seems a good deal… http://www.digidirect.com.au/slr_cameras/nikon/nikon_d3200_i…

• 

  [Deactivated] on 10/11/2014 - 15:56

  You know your iPhone has a camera, right?

  • 

    Cheeper on 10/11/2014 - 16:05

    He does… his daughter wants to get into photography as a hobby it seems from his comments.

• 

  poohduck on 10/11/2014 - 17:07

  With a budget of $300 it will be hard. It sounds as though your daughter needs a compact enthusiast camera - these have lots of manual control which is ideal for someone getting into photography. A cheap dslr is OK, but the lenses at this price point are a bit of a let down.

  I was lucky enough to get a nikon p7800 for $299 from jb hifi. Great value but that deal is gone. There is also the canon equivalent g16, but the nikon has an electronic viewfinder - again better for someone who wants to learn photography or get "more creative". I mention both these cameras because they've been out for over a year and you'll start to see deals on them.

  It will be hard though. Ideally you want a spare battery, 2 fast memory cards, and possibly a cheap small aluminium tripod (around $20).

  Oh, and the Olympus Stylus 1, it should fit the bill too (if you get a good deal as in the two above).

  I'd steer clear of camerasky. I tried to order from them 2 times - both times I confirmed what I wanted (filters) were in stock, paid for them, then was informed they were not in stock and were unlikely to be in future. I don't know what they're about. Leederville cameras, cambuy, camerapro etc - these are good cheap online stores and Australian stock. I have bought from them cheaper than grey imports.

• 

  p1 ama on 10/11/2014 - 18:02

  +2

  Can anyone recommend either an alternative camera (at around the $300 mark) or know where I can source a A3000 in Oz for a reasonable price.

  I wouldn't recommend Sony for a starter camera. They're really an alternative brand, if you're looking for a good camera on which to build a foundation, you almost always should go with Nikon or Canon.

  Yes, there are people who love Sony, but to learn, you often need to research, read and buy cheap lenses. There are plenty of resources on the internet for Nikon and Canon, plenty of cheap second hand lenses as well, but it's a much harder prospect with Sony. I've had arguments with other people in the past about this topic, btu this is my opinion. Avoid other mirrorless systems for the same reason.

  My recommendation would be a proper DSLR. If you're going to buy her a camera and she wants to get into photography, a point and shoot isn't going to cut it. Premium point and shoots such as the Canon G1X are great for people who just want to take pictures but not actually care about the camera. If you're into real photography where you're going to be needing lots of lenses for specific applications, always look at DSLRs.

  My recommendations would be the Nikon D3200 or Canon 1200D. Both great cameras, you can get one with a kit lens for not much more than $300.

  Also, why do you want to buy from Australia? Don't buy from Australia unless you enjoy getting ripped off. For camera gear, especially Canon and Nikon, it's always best to purchase grey. Canon and Nikon rip Australians off so much with their overpricing here that it's ridiculous. You can get stuff on the grey market for 25% or sometimes even 30% off the RRP in Australia, yes, it's actually that ridiculous. Buying in Australia will only support and allow that sort of behaviour to continue. Until we all buy grey and vote with our wallets, Australians will continue getting ripped off.

  • 

    plmko on 10/11/2014 - 20:47

    Disagree, for complete starters in this day of age, Sony enthusiast cameras are the way to go, not Nikon or Canon.

    Why?

    Because they are all based on 'live view' where you can see what your settings are doing. Given that OP has indicated that getting 'arty' is a reason, then Sony's are the way to go for photo filters. Lens ecosystem means nothing for starters because the body and kit lens are not good enough to be recycled, you're going to dump them all when you outgrow your hardware, IMO this is a mistake lots of beginners make when they pay too much on their first camera thinking it's future proof.

    • 

      p1 ama on 10/11/2014 - 21:11

      The way I see things is this.

      There's nothing mirrorless cameras can do that DSLRs can't do. So many people harp on about how mirrorless cameras are good because you can see the exact end image you'll get, you benefit from focus assist (e.g. face tracking), you can preview exposure…etc. But DSLRs have "Live View" as well, where you can do all of these things and basically operate your DLSR as a mirrorless camera.

      The only benefit to mirrorless right now is size. I will completely agree that if you want a small camera, the Sony Alpha series are the way to go. On the flip side, DSLRs are faster, have much better AF systems and are just more durable.

      That said, there are two genuine problem with mirrorless systems. Firstly, apart from the A7, there are no full frame mirrorless cameras. Whilst full-frame is really a carry-over from the 35mm film days, a bigger sensor can still capture more light, achieve shallower depth of field, have cleaner high ISOs…etc. there is just no way to defy physics and get the same image quality from a 4/3rds or APS-C sized sensor.

      The second, and perhaps the larger complaint, is the lack of integration in Sony's system. E-mount was never really designed for full frame in mind, I think the A7 was really an afterthought, otherwise, Sony would have released full-frame lenses from the start. Basically Sony only have 5 full-frame lenses, meaning that if you buy a system for your A6000 or similar based around their E-mount lenses, you're stuck with APS-C unless you upgrade your lenses as well.

      Even the lenses that are available for full frame E-mount don't compare to what's available on the Nikon system. Their zooms are still a slow f/4 and their build quality are just not up to professional standards. Play with the Sony 70-200 f/4 and you'll see that it's a plastic and feels like a consumer product. Hold a 70-200 f/4 from Nikon or Canon and it's a durable, solid chunck of material. Hold a 70-200 f/2.8 from Nikon or Canon and it'll just be a complete, beast, hunk of metal.

      On the Nikon system, whilst there are specific DX lenses for crop bodies, most of their lenses work on both crop and full frame bodies. For example, their 50mm f/1.8, one of the most popular lenses, works on both DX and FX, meaning if you upgrade, you won't have to buy again. This is the big problem with Sony, no upgrade path.

      • 

        plmko on 10/11/2014 - 21:56

        "There's nothing mirrorless cameras can do that DSLRs can't do. "

        I don't think that's the case, you're assuming all cameras are equal and perfect substitutes. Think about it in the context of low-end cameras, if you buy a mirrorless the manufacturing budget is going to price in features that take advantage of the 'live view' function, DSLR on the otherhand is going to price in and assume you're going to shoot with the mirror, the 'live view' is just going to be there as an after thought. And rightly so, for ~$500 entry level of Nikon d3200 the live view refresh is almost a joke, definitely not going to take advantage of auto-focus advantages without the mirror either, nor are you going to get anywhere without focus-peaking.

        But I digress, you're talking a lot about APS-C and full frame and then a whole bunch of technical lenses. I agree they are all good quality stuff, but like I said a starter to cameras isn't going to buy or understand any of that stuff and in the end you're just going to buy more than you can handle. Case in point when you upgrade to FX, why even bother with your DX lens, the answer is you're not and your entry body isn't even going to do those FX lenses justice, so you'll end up buying both a new body and a new lens.

        As the OP has indicated interest about the a3000 or something, it just so happens the a3000 is perfectly capable with full enthusiast features at a rock bottom price. So why not?

      • 

        p1 ama on 11/11/2014 - 00:05

        @plmko: I don't think there's much point in this debate, much like the whole Toyota vs. Mazda or Canon vs. Nikon, it's all about what makes us happy.

        I've outlined the way I see things above. For me, I have certain priorities, for which a mature DSLR system is better. I like the availability of professional grade lenses I can take outdoors and not have to worry about. I like the tougher bodies and the response and faster AF speeds of 'through the lens' operation.

        Also, I don't think it's fair to say FX lenses are wasted on DX cameras. If you're a serious photographer, serious as in you're doing it for money (I'm not) or you're doing it for a passion and you actually print, display and share your art (I do), then it's important to invest in lenses.

        Bodies these days are all the same. A D3300 will give you exactly the same technical image quality as a D7100, so unless you need the features of a D7100, why not go with the D3300 and proper lenses. Camera bodies change every year, they depreciate like nuts and I'm always reluctant to change bodies. That's why I still shoot a mid-range full-frame D600, even when I can upgrade to a D810 or even D4, because it's a waste. Get pro lenses and you're still using them 10 years later.

        Lenses are never wastes. You can buy them, use them, sell them, whatever you want, it's so good.

        Sony cameras just don't have that level of active lens market and the E-moint system simply doesn't have the integration and market share that Nikon and Canon do.

        I'll be honest, the Sony A7 is an amazing camera, it's better than my D600, but I can't move my lenses to E-mount, it's just not mature enough yet.

        Anyway, this is all just my opinion. If you love being on the cutting edge of tech, Sony are great, DSLRs are probably getting unfashionable, but they're tried, tested, reliable and are great at what they do.

• 

  no47 on 10/11/2014 - 18:14

  +1

  Thanks for all the suggestions guys, Ive learnt a fair bit over the last couple of hours. Ive just been to the local camera shop and had a look at the Nikon D3200 and the D3300. Really impressed with them both, seem lightweight and easy to handle and think the D3200 will be the one I end up buying for her. Guy in the shop advised waiting till nearer Xmas before buying as there will likely be some better deals around that time.
  The price on the link from Xwyolap seems pretty good though so I might have to give that a shot.

  • 

    bargdebarg on 10/11/2014 - 18:55

    Another option is the d3100 second hand. Perhaps with a 50mm 1.8 g prime (equalivant to 35mm on a crop sensor - the camera's you're looking at). A nice combo for learning photography. If she's keen, she could buy either a prime wide angle or telephoto next.

• 

  plmko on 10/11/2014 - 20:43

  a3000 and a3500 is the same thing, people on OzB just get anal because the included lens is (ever) slightly different.

• 

  mingofmongo on 11/11/2014 - 08:01

  Canon make a beginner line of DSLRs at around this price point.

  The 1200D came out recently and can be had from Kogan with a lens for $389 plus delivery: http://www.harveynorman.com.au/canon-eos-1100d-digital-slr-w…

  If you don't mind a slightly older design, the 1100D is at Harvey Norman with a lens for $399 http://www.harveynorman.com.au/canon-eos-1100d-digital-slr-w…

  Nice thing about Canon is there's LOTS of books and guides out there for beginners, intermediate, and pro photographers.