Think of the decision this way: What kind of camera can I buy that is different enough (see the previous chapter) from my phone’s camera that on any given day, I’ll bring that

To prevent buyer’s remorse, it’s important to realize that a great camera won’t make your photos great. And, even more critically, it won’t even guarantee that you’ll use it. So before focusing on the details and the spec sheets, you must remember that the camera has to be one that you’ll love to use and that you’ll gratefully lug it along even when you have a perfectly acceptable camera phone.

So that is the viewpoint of this section. I’m reluctant to give any strong advice on cameras here because you’ll find much better discussion at DPReview.com. But again, beware of getting lost in the numbers.

And this especially goes for megapixel count: do not make your decision based on that.

What can money buy?

Since I don’t have a lot to say about technical details, I ended up sharing a bit about the cameras I’ve purchased for myself. You’ll notice that all of them, at some point, are best in class…which means you should keep that in mind, as my perspective is skewed.

That said, I try to explain why these cameras, to me, seemed to be worth the money at the time.

I should also say that I didn’t spend an extensive time comparing spec sheets. These were things I looked for.

Full disclosure: I used to be tye type who didn’t care how big a camera was. After buying a Canon S90, I realized how much I enjoyed carrying a camera everywhere was. How I subconsciously wouldn’t take photos.

There’s so many cameras. What’s the first thing I should care about?

The biggest differentiator is whether the camera has manual controls, allowing you to adjust shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. This is something that virtually no camera phone or sub $200-compact camera has.

So, assuming you have a cheap/phone camera, you need to look for something that has radically more functionality than your phone camera. This is not about modes (phone cameras now have face detection, filters, etc), megapixels.

Besides price, what specs should I care about?

Here are the other things to look out for, in order of relative importance.

Physical size

The best camera is the one you have with you. If you’re not used to carrying a separate camera as you are your camera phone, it will be very difficult to get used to having something around your neck. You either have to be devoted to being a photographer.

Note that “size” is a bit relative. It can depend on your fashion; what are you used to wearing and bringing with you.

But the key thing is, can you carry this camera with you and not feel burdened by it? The tradeoff will be quality. In my retrospective, this trumps everything

There are three tiers of this:

Does this fit in your jacket pocket?

Not everyone likes walking around with a giant bulge in their front pocket. But a jacket’s pocket is loose enough to contain a decently sized camera.

Virtually no cameras with interchangeable lenses fit in this tier. My friend, who loves bringing a nice camera to music concerts tells me he gets by putting the long lens in one pocket and the small camera body in the other.

Does this fit in your bag/purse?

This applies mostly to traditional women fashion, of course, where people are used to carrying a purse. Most DSLR’s actually would fit this category.

Following the theme of carrying something without feeling like you’re bringing something new, this obviously applies more to traditional norms of women’s fashion.

If you’re a guy who isn’t ready to carry a purse, you can find compact cameras, 4/3rds, that will fit in a laptop bag. I’ve been able at times to carry my ultrathin laptop and disassembled Canon 5D 2, though if the bag makes contact, be prepared to take damage.

Needs an extra shoulder-strap

IF the camera is big enough that you have to wear it around your neck or have a separate camera bag, then the cost of use is pretty much the same. Any place that wont’ let you in for carrying this probably won’t let you in for carrying a canon. Again, this is not a consideration if you plan on traveling to touristy places (you’re going to look like a dork, whether you have a camera or not)

To give you my personal experience; I’m not a pixel-pusher, I care less about pixel perfect photos than the average enthusiast. So when I got a Canon S90, a camera that has manual controls, I liked it so much that I actually convinced myself that this was almost as good as carrying my usual Canon 5d2 setup.

It obviously wasn’t. But what does it matter, I got photos I didn’t otherwise.

Low-light performance

Every camera, even your phone camera, can take interesting, usable photos when light is plentiful and at the right angle.

For everything else, this is where expensive cameras outdo the rest. Assuming you don’t have lighting equipment and aren’t likely to carry external light accessories.

I’ve carried a Canon 5D2 into a bar, but bringing an external flash unit is even too socially awkward for me.

I’m a particular fan of night photography so this, for me, is the most critical feature. There are actually a few metrics that can hint at this: sensor size, dynamic range, and ISO range:

• Sensor size
• Dynamic range
• ISO range

Maximum Aperture

Shutter lag

Controls, user interface

This is tricky, because if you’re not used to using manual controls, then you don’t know what a good control scheme even is. And in fact, you may not even care how clunky a camera is if you’re used to the barely servicable controls o your camera phone.

But you might as you get more into photography, so it’s good to look a little ahead.

My advice is to read detailed reviews of the camera, from people who are using it in various environments, not just in the lab/studio. If there’s a lot of complaints about how hard it was to switch settings, manual mode, etc., then be careful.

Another option is to borrow a friend’s expensive camera, or go into a store and play around with them. Then try your cheaper target camera and see how closely it emulates the experience. Again, I don’t know how possible it is to do this without having real-life shooting experience, but hey, it’s worth a shot.

Photos per second

This is a measurement different than shutter lag, but obviously, shutter lag will be a limiting factor.

This is the maximum rate a camera can take pictures of

Other things, in no order of importance

Auto-focus ability RAW format Battery life Articulating screen Viewfinder

Things I really don’t care about (but maybe you will) Megapixels Quality of LCD screen Number of modes Quality of pop-up flash

About brands

There are legions of threads about Canon vs Nikon, Sony vs Fuji, etc. etc. I have nothing to say about it as I’ve tried all brands at some point and have liked them all.

But we can’t ignore that if you do buy into a system, you’re buying into the ecossytem.

I don’t mean to be cavalier about this, but it is putting the cart before the horse. If you aren’t a great photographer, by the time you become one dedicated enough to buy “real” equipment, camera tech will have advanced enough for you to consider jumping systems.

My own epxerinece: I bought a Sony NEX-7 even though I haven’t bought a Sony product since the Playstation 2 and I already have thousands of dollars in Canon equipment. But it filled a role for me and even if I don’t buy another lens, the ones I have work fine for me.

Do I need an expensive camera to take a great photo?

Besides price, what specs should I care about?

Taking good photos is not about good equipment…all of the principles

With ideal light, an iPhone can capture 90% of the aesthetic quality as a $7999 camera.

So what’s the difference? That expensive camera is more likely to capture what you saw.

So how much you pay correlates how much “consistency” you get. How important that consistency to you should be the primary concern.

This is why someone who spends a dumpload on a camera can still take terrible photos. And why some of the most memorable photos were taken by phone.

I have never bought a camera for myself. How do I start?

The Bastards Book of Photography is aimed at teaching you how to use the manual controls on your camera.

So to make it simple, here are the two tiers of cameras:

1. Simple point-and-shoots: this includes virtually every digital camera under $200 and phone cameras. You can take a picture, you can take video. But you can’t adjust the shutter speed or aperture: the camera handles this for you itself.

2. Better than simple P&S: This covers everything from the slim Canon S95 to your 7999 Nikon DX and beyond. These cameras allow you to control shutter speed and aperture, among many other things. Size doesn’t matter; the Canon S95 is about the size of most simple P&S but it has manual controls.

You’ll get the most out of this guide if you can do this with your camera.

It can’t be that simple, can it?

For the purposes of this guide, yes. But there is an important distinction in the better-than-simple category: cameras that let you switch lenses and cameras that don’t. This basically means, you get(/have) to buy lenses along with the camera body. This gives you more flexibility in photography and also more empty space in your wallet.

Besides price, what are the most important specs to look at?

Pocketability

“The best camera is the one you have with you”

If you’re a beginner photographer, size of the camera may be the one thing that keeps you from being a casual to an avid photographer.

The most common reason I’ve heard for not using the camera you got for Christmas is something like “I hate having to carry that huge thing around.” So you resort to their camera phones, which, under the right conditions can take fine photos.

I have a large camera, so I’m lucky that in New York it’s socially tolerable (and usually safe) to walk around with a massive camera. But even here I don’t feel great, so I bought a half-size camera that I can pocket. It may leave a bulge, but at least it’s usable at a restaurant, show, etc.

Although there’s a range of sizes, it’s important to reduce it to a either-or choice. That is, does this camera fit in my pocket. Or, does it fit in my handbag along with my laptop? Because these situations will keep you from taking it on many occasions.

With pocketable cameras, you will be making serious compromises to image quality and versatility.

Of course, if you’re convinced that you’ll be happy having a large camera around your heck, then I don’t think there’s much of a distinction between medium-big camera and massive camera…both of them require the same mode of operation. Choose the one that fits your price point and scores well in the other quality factors.

Note that this is the one important feature that has no relation to cost. Small, high quality cameras can cost much more than large cameras with equal image quality.

Sensor size

Your camera’s sensor is what film was to non-digital cameras. It captures the light that’s used to create a picture.

There’s a number of types of sensors (usually corresponding to the type of camera: compact, 4/3rds, full-frame) and they have various tradeoffs and advantages. Don’t bother yet reading up on the different types or terminology, I honestly don’t keep track. But the concept is important to know. For a full briefing, check out Engadget’s Sean Arbabi’s wonderful writeup.

Here’s the dumb-downed version: bigger is better, especially in regards to the following two features that are most important to me:

Dynamic range

The reason why your photos look washed out or boring in comparison to what you remember seeing is that your eye can capture a much higher range of shadows and light. Your camera, in comparison, can capture either the bright parts (leaving the dark parts nearly black) or the dark parts (blowing out the light colored areas) well. Expensive sensors can do a better job capturing both ranges. http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/dynamic_range_01.htm

Noise level

We’ll get more into detail on this in the ISO chapter, but you can increase your camera’s light sensitivity to better capture a dark scene. The tradeoff is increased noise – random pixels that muddle up the clean lines of an image. This can get ugly fast, which is why people have to resort to flash in non-sunlight-lit situations. Expensive cameras (and lenses) can produce usable images in much darker situations.

It’s hard to quantify noise level without seeing photo samples. The camera specs usually describe the ISO range, i.e., the range of sensitivity that you can set. Typically (but not always), a camera that can go up to xxxx ISO is likely to have lesser noise levels at, say, 1600 ISO, than a camera that maxes out at 1600 ISO.

Why does my tiny sensor camera have more megapixels than this massive sensor camera?

I’m glad you brought this up. This is a good example of why megapixel count should not be a major consideration in determining a camera choice. A sensor’s physical size does not determine megapixel count. So how does a small camera fit more megapixels than a giant camera? The pixels are “smaller”, collect less light information and are more susceptible to being distorted.TK

Shutter lag

Film cameras were nice in that pushing the photo-taking-button result in the camera actually taking a photo at that instant – as far as you could tell.

But digital cameras have a lot of intermediary issues in the way, such as how fast the camera’s computer processes the light in the scene, which could result in a half-second or more gap from when you pressed the button.

There’s a lot of factors in this and it’s not all apples to apples. For example, some cameras will take the second and third photo in much faster succession. Some of this lag comes from auto-focus, which is also affected by lens quality (and irrelevant if you use manual focus).

Another factor to consider is how long it takes for the camera to turn on and capture its first shot, a nice feature if you have the habit of turning your camera off the instant you put it to your side.

I don’t know if there’s much sense in being super nitpicky about this feature, though, because it naturally correlates with the price of a camera: pricey cameras will rarely have slow response times. In large cameras, with interchangeable lenses, the response times (for the first photo anyway) are imperceptible in most cases. But there can be significant differences between smaller cameras. Sluggish response time is usually something you have to put up with in exchange for compact size.

Note: Shutter lag is different from a camera’s shutter speed setting. And it’s different (though a little related) to the number of photos a camera can take in a second.

Photos per second

This measure can be thought of as: if I hold down the trigger, how many photos can the camera take in a single second?

In virtually all compact, non-interchangable lens cameras, this rate is 1 or less a second.

For high-end sports cameras, the rate can go as high as 12 photos/sec. Some equally expensive cameras that do better in certain image quality factors may be as slow as 4 per sec.

This rate of shooting is not related to shutter speed, which describes the duration of time that light is captured in a single photo. So, say you had a camera that maxes out at 1 photo/sec. You could capture a photo at a shutter speed of 1/1000th of a second. But your camera will not take another photo until a whole second has passed, after which, it could capture another 1/1000 sec. of time.

Continuous shooting mode: Some cameras have an optional, hyperspeed mode that may allow a 3 photos/sec. camera shoot up to 10 photos/sec. This is made possible because the camera doesn’t bother calculating/checking the focus/exposure settings in between shots. This means that after you pull the trigger, you’re stuck at whatever focus/exposure calculation you started with for as long as you hold the trigger. This is not ideal to capture an object moving directly at or away from you, as that object will move out of focus at some point.

Other niceties

So is money important? Sure, but I may be just saying that because I’ve spent as much on cameras as people do on their cars. What has the benefit been? Well, it’s two things:

1. After you’ve blown a lot of money on a camera, the shame alone may compel you to use it as much as possible

2. A better camera will get better pictures, period. Seeing great photos will encourage you to take more photos and perhaps impress enough people to get you notice. A lesser camera will still do this, but at a less consistent rate.

Lenses

Before you ask a pro “What brand is the best?” ask them, “What brand of camera do you use?” There are differences between the top brands, eg. Canon and Nikon, but what keeps a pro using one brand is the fact that he/she has $10,000 worth of gear that is only compatible with that brand. And 70-90% of that is in lenses.

So, when you buy a camera with an interchangeable lens system, you aren’t just buyhing into that camera, but into its entire ecosystem.

Daunting, huh?

Luckily, the established brands have roughly the same quality and variety of lenses. But this is a factor to consider when buying into less established brands. But frankly, if you’re a beginner, this is a bridge that you may not cross in awhile.

What camera do you [the author] have?

Besides my iPhone, I own two camera systems: The Canon 5D2 and the Sony NEX-7

I bought the 5D2 because I had, well, the original 5D, which I bought for its large full-frame sensor and its corresponding low-light performance ability. The 5D2 is commonplace among pros and gained favor for its movie-making abilities (which I have not exploited). For me, I wanted high quality images, and I didn’t mind carrying it around with me everywhere.

I then got a S90 because it’s just not feasible to carry a 5D2 everywhere. I wanted something I could pocket. I was able to take photos like these:

[photo williamsburg bridge]

The S90 was so fun to use that I pretty much stopped using the 5d2 for a period of time; I had gotten used to the limitations (sluggish shutter lag, ). But then I picked up the 5D2 for an assignment and realized, whoa, there really is no replacing a massive camera when you need good photos consistently.

This past year, because I ended up traveling more than I ever had before. I hadn’t traveled in years so I didn’t know the decorum for carrying a big camera. And I wasn’t confident that the S90 would be bad. So I chipped in for the new Sony NEX-7. I honestly had vowed never to buy a Sony product after the PS2 because I was annoyed with their propietary formats. But the NEX-7 had such glowing reviews that I gave in. It was a great decision. The NEX-7 gets me about 90% of where the 5D2 does, and has some features that the 5d2 doesn’t (panoramas, articulated screens, electronic viewfinder for fine-tune focusing), and best of all, I can pocket it. I can even pocket it in running shorts (and just assume no one will notice the bulge)