Best blog camera on a budget

[KerrKid]

I mostly have 35mm film cameras, but want to start an "around town" blog and need something more immediate and less costly than film. It seems like a digital camera makes the most sense so I could take 50-100 photos per day and get them uploaded.

I just inherited a 14.1 megapixel GE 1486TW camera and it seems to take adequate photos, but I wouldn't mind a step up from it. It just seems too small and "unprofessional" and not far removed from my iPhone XR.

What would you experts recommend for doing some street photography and popping into businesses to take pix of employees and even just general shots of town activity? I can't spend a lot of money so I wouldn't mind a good older digital. I think it needs a zoom and a decent flash just in case, but I'll defer to your suggestions.

Thank you!

 

[juan]

What 35mm cameras do you have? Maybe you can buy a used version of the same brand and use your existing lenses. For instance, my Nikon digital takes the lenses from my Nikon 35mm cameras. Check KEH or UsedPhotoPro for used digitals at reasonable prices. I agree that digital is now the way to go for what you want to do.

 

[KerrKid]

I have an SRT-101, 201, and X-570. I have a Pentax KM. I'm not sure how highly regarded Minolta digitals are. I actually never hear them mentioned and I've heard that quality is not what it was back in the day. None of the digital cameras on the Minolta website accept other lens.

Pentax has some digital bodies but not sure about compatibility with my older lenses or quality of manufacture.

I may be better served by saving my money and jumping to a different brand for my digital camera. Nikon, Canon, Fujifilm, Sony, Panasonic. I think the Nikon P950 or P1000 would be perfect but I can't afford those. I don't know enough about the older cameras made by the brands mentioned above to know what to get on the used market.

 

[gone]

A Nikon D50/D70 is dirt cheap. There's less file size, but high quality, easily good enough for your purposes or for printing 13x19. A decent lens and camera should cost you less than $100, and unlike a cheapo digital camera, you can sell it later and reinvest the funds into something else. A low end digital camera might be something you'll be stuck with.

 

[MattKing]

My wife's Olympus OM-D M10 II with the kit lens is tiny, amazingly competent and can be purchased used for relatively little money.

 

[KerrKid]

My wife's Olympus OM-D M10 II with the kit lens is tiny, amazingly competent and can be purchased used for relatively little money.

I just looked that up. Wow. Nice camera at a very reasonable price. What lens does your wife's camera have on it? Long shot but would my Minolta or Pentax lenses work?

 

[KerrKid]

A Nikon D50/D70 is dirt cheap. There's less file size, but high quality, easily good enough for your purposes or for printing 13x19. A decent lens and camera should cost you less than $100, and unlike a cheapo digital camera, you can sell it later and reinvest the funds into something else. A low end digital camera might be something you'll be stuck with.

I checked those out on ebay. Not expensive. Is there a later model Nikon in that same general category that you would recommend?

 

[MattKing]

I just looked that up. Wow. Nice camera at a very reasonable price. What lens does your wife's camera have on it? Long shot but would my Minolta or Pentax lenses work?

The lenses for full frame 35mm cameras can be used on the M 4/3 cameras using adapters, but you lose auto-focus, and the small sensor means that the field of view is cut in half - i.e. a 50mm lens on the OMD gives the same result as a 100mm lens on the 35mm camera.
So wide angles aren't nearly as wide.
The kit lens on my wife's camera is the 14mm - 42mm zoom. Small, light and very well behaved. Similar to a 28-mm to 84mm zoom on 35mm.
The 4/3 aspect ratio suits my eye - same as 6x4.5 (or 110) in film. It does make focal length comparisons with 35mm slightly more complex.
It takes a bit of getting used to the electronic viewfinder, but the electronic viewfinder has some advantages too.
The menus are quite complex, but that comes with having all the options, and you can customize things.
I haven't used the video functions much.

 

[KerrKid]

The lenses for full frame 35mm cameras can be used on the M 4/3 cameras using adapters, but you lose auto-focus, and the small sensor means that the field of view is cut in half - i.e. a 50mm lens on the OMD gives the same result as a 100mm lens on the 35mm camera.
So wide angles aren't nearly as wide.
The kit lens on my wife's camera is the 14mm - 42mm zoom. Small, light and very well behaved. Similar to a 28-mm to 84mm zoom on 35mm.
The 4/3 aspect ratio suits my eye - same as 6x4.5 (or 110) in film. It does make focal length comparisons with 35mm slightly more complex.
It takes a bit of getting used to the electronic viewfinder, but the electronic viewfinder has some advantages too.
The menus are quite complex, but that comes with having all the options, and you can customize things.
I haven't used the video functions much.

Thank you for the information. The 14-42mm looks like it'd be the perfect lens for me. It IS a small camera! BTW....I really like my Olympus XA2. The OMD seems like it's probably just a bit a big bigger than that.

 

[MattKing]

A comparison that actually makes the OM-D look larger than it is:

 

[Sirius Glass]

Any camera you have is a good place to start. Minolta, Canon and Nikon cameras of many models will fill the need.

 

[KerrKid]

Any camera you have is a good place to start. Minolta, Canon and Nikon cameras of many models will fill the need.

Words of wisdom. The DOING is the most important part.

A comparison that actually makes the OM-D look larger than it is:
View attachment 302854

True. That OM-4 is tiny, too.

 

[grat]

Friend of mine picked up a barely used EOS Rebel T7i from a local pawn shop for cheap ($200-$300 range).

 

[KerrKid]

I've been looking at the Nikon D200. Those can be had for relatively little money including a kit lens. Probably all I need until I can afford something newer/more advanced. Plus, it will help get the Nikon Acquisition Syndrome established as I shell out for lenses.

 

[juan]

Just be careful that the old Nikon lenses are ai, ais or later. Or that they have been ai-Ed. Non-ai lenses don’t have the proper machining for indexing the meter and can damage the camera. Any lens after 1977 should be fine as is, and many older will be.

 

[mgb74]

I've been looking at the Nikon D200. Those can be had for relatively little money including a kit lens. Probably all I need until I can afford something newer/more advanced. Plus, it will help get the Nikon Acquisition Syndrome established as I shell out for lenses.

A D200 would not be my choice for the requirements you've stated. Too big and heavy with no real advantage - for your need - over smaller and lighter alternatives.

Assuming you plan to display your photos digitally, almost any decent micro 4/3s, or APS-C mirrorless/compact camera with a mid-range zoom should be fine. If I was doing this, I'd use my Canon G15 rather than my Nikon DSLRs.

Don't obsess (in case you were) on megapixels. You're needs will be quite modest in that department.

What will be essential is a small flash, compatible with your camera, that has bounce capability. For example, I use the Canon 270EX II with my G15. But there are similar choices for almost all camera systems.

 

[KerrKid]

Just be careful that the old Nikon lenses are ai, ais or later. Or that they have been ai-Ed. Non-ai lenses don’t have the proper machining for indexing the meter and can damage the camera. Any lens after 1977 should be fine as is, and many older will be.

Good advice. Thank you. For someone n
considering a Nikon, the lens choice can be daunting.

 

[KerrKid]

A D200 would not be my choice for the requirements you've stated. Too big and heavy with no real advantage - for your need - over smaller and lighter alternatives.

Assuming you plan to display your photos digitally, almost any decent micro 4/3s, or APS-C mirrorless/compact camera with a mid-range zoom should be fine. If I was doing this, I'd use my Canon G15 rather than my Nikon DSLRs.

Don't obsess (in case you were) on megapixels. You're needs will be quite modest in that department.

What will be essential is a small flash, compatible with your camera, that has bounce capability. For example, I use the Canon 270EX II with my G15. But there are similar choices for almost all camera systems.

The G15 does look like a very good choice. Thank you for recommending it and putting it on my radar.

Thankfully, I’m not obsessed with megapixels and, as you said, my needs are small with this application.

On Wednesday, I bought a D200 with the 18-55 kit lens, battery and charger supposedly all in excellent condition for $95 on eBay. At that price, I felt I could afford to make a mistake and not be out much money if I don’t like it.

 

[KerrKid]

A D200 would not be my choice for the requirements you've stated. Too big and heavy with no real advantage - for your need - over smaller and lighter alternatives.

Assuming you plan to display your photos digitally, almost any decent micro 4/3s, or APS-C mirrorless/compact camera with a mid-range zoom should be fine. If I was doing this, I'd use my Canon G15 rather than my Nikon DSLRs.

Don't obsess (in case you were) on megapixels. You're needs will be quite modest in that department.

What will be essential is a small flash, compatible with your camera, that has bounce capability. For example, I use the Canon 270EX II with my G15. But there are similar choices for almost all camera systems.

I've been researching the G15 even though I bought the D200. Yes, the D200 is quite big, but it arrived looking like it had just left the factory. For $94.77 I couldn't really do better.

I'm going to save up for the G15. It really does look like the perfect camera for me in many ways. Maybe I'll get lucky and come across a good deal.

Thanks again for the recommendation.

 

[McDiesel]

And why wouldn't an iPhone not work for this? It has a huge advantage of being by far the less intimidating picture making device in the history of mankind. They are truly invisible.

 

[KerrKid]

And why wouldn't an iPhone not work for this? It has a huge advantage of being by far the less intimidating picture making device in the history of mankind. They are truly invisible.

Technically, it would, and my iPhone XR takes very good pictures. But, I'm not after discreet or voyeur photography. I will be going in to businesses, and going to events, construction sites, accident scenes, etc. where I want to give the appearance of being a professional photojournalist. I'll be asking permission to take pictures and post them on my blog. The iPhone just doesn't have the "presence" for that type of photography, although I will definitely use it where and when it's the best choice.

 

[McDiesel]

@KerrKid I see, despite of some might say, appearances do matter. In fact, I think your project is a really cool stage to play with these variables. You may end up discovering that a smart phone and a professional-looking camera will each give you images that their counterpart won't. Say, your local mayor will more likely to pose smiling with a tongue sticking out on an iPhone, but it will be easier to get them to move to a spot with better light if you have the appearances. Do both!

[EDIT] Oh, you're from Kerrvile TX, where Mooneys are made! That should be a great photo tour if they let you.

 

[KerrKid]

@KerrKid I see, despite of some might say, appearances do matter. In fact, I think your project is a really cool stage to play with these variables. You may end up discovering that a smart phone and a professional-looking camera will each give you images that their counterpart won't. Say, your local mayor will more likely to pose smiling with a tongue sticking out on an iPhone, but it will be easier to get them to move to a spot with better light if you have the appearances. Do both!

[EDIT] Oh, you're from Kerrvile TX, where Mooneys are made! That should be a great photo tour if they let you.

Yes, both the iPhone together with the D200 would be a great combination. I like your insight as to how people would feel and behave in front of both cameras. That could definitely work to my advantage.

Well, Mooney's used to be made here. You know the story with Mooney. In and out of business. It started tanking again when the Chinese bought it. They lost boatloads of money and finally shuttered new production. I think they still provide parts support. Their place is at the airport and I go by there quite often. I live beneath the flight path to the airport so I see a lot of planes go by. I actually don't see many Mooneys in the air. I know someone who used to be an inspector there and he could probably get me in. Good thinking on a factory tour. It would make for a good blog.

 

[McDiesel]

Yep, I've been following them for a while. Right now GA is on th upswing with long waiting lists for even the basic new Cessnas. AFAIK Mooney is looking for investors again and hopefully 3rd time is the charm!

 

[KerrKid]

Yep, I've been following them for a while. Right now GA is on th upswing with long waiting lists for even the basic new Cessnas. AFAIK Mooney is looking for investors again and hopefully 3rd time is the charm!

With the economy in the shape it's in, no less. Not sure who'd want to jump into the Mooney mess unless they were looking for a tax write-off.

I'll take an Aircam. That airplane was taylor-made for photography.