How do you choose a digital camera?

[mmagyar]

I'm curious how everyone chooses a camera.
I'm in the market for a new camera but it's just damn hard to decide what to buy since there are literally 100s of camera models on the market (including used) to choose from.
Obviously, marketing says I should buy the latest top of the line camera, but I don't believe it's necessary, which actually makes the choice harder.
There is literally a 10x price difference between the option that may give the necessary tools to take nice pictures.

Backstory:
I'm mostly shooting film, but I just don't have the time to process the film and even less to make actual darkroom prints, for this reason lately I tend to pick up my Canon 1000D for casual shooting.
I bought the 1000D because it was unbelievably cheap used, and I already have a nice collection of Canon lenses, but let's just say, it's not a very good camera, I'm mostly annoyed by the tiny viewfinder, and the abysmal AF which is a bad combination since it leads to a lot of out of focus pictures, and the smaller sensor is also a problem since my favorite lenses behave very differently on it, compared to when I'm shooting my Eos 1-n or Eos 33.
I used to have a Samsung Nx300 a few years ago, let's just say it didn't inspire me to go out and shoot with it and I missed the viewfinder, then I had a Sony a7R which I just hated for a multitude of reasons, but mostly for the worst shutter that shook the camera so much that it made the high res sensor worthless.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Determine the most important features that you would like. That will determine the level of camera that you want and you have a range of many brands and models to choose from in a wide range of costs. At a particular level, they are all about the same so use a SWAG [scientific wild ass guess].

 

[juan]

According to my camera club you look at the ads and choose the one with the most bullet points for features.

seriously, since you already have canon lenses, I’d look to that line. I’ve found with buying electronics, one step back from the newest or fastest is where the best value lies.

 

[Chan Tran]

I actually chose my cameras very easily.

 

[4season]

It was easy: I merely sought significant improvements in every area versus my older camera, particularly with regard to image quality.

 

[jvo]

moving from the film world, i looked for some features I thought i needed at a price I wanted to pay (cheap!).

I chose 2 panasonic cameras, 2 bodies, 2 lenses, m43 - evf, articulated screen, good lenses), and couldn't be happier with the results.

i'd do it again in a heart beat!

any camera you purchase today will most likely be as good as the analog image maker you had. the deciding factor is the size of the PRINT you want to make... if it's 16x20" and larger, you want a bigger sensor/megapixels.

if the largest you go is 8x10, (me), any 20 mgp camera with the features you like would do for prints and whatever other digital imaging you need.

 

[Cholentpot]

I looked at what the pro's at the time were using, asked them what they used and why, then went out and found what I wanted.

For what it's worth. The pro or semi-pro Canon DSLRs are a step above the consumer stuff. I started with a 550D which was and still is an excellent camera, moved to a 6DMK1 which if I got stuck with as my last DSLR I would be fine, and moved onto a 5DMK4.

Image wise, the 6D and 5D4 are pretty much the same, I can't really tell the difference. The 5D4 does have a very much improved autofocus system from the 6D.

I started with Canon and stuck with Canon because that's what I was used to and I can use any Canon without thinking too much. I would say with digital, buy into a system and stick with it. It makes life easier.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you already have Canon lenses then go with one of the 5D versions. Closest thing you are going to get to your 1n. You can get a brand new 5DR something or other 50mp camera for $1500. Hard to beat that. The rest are less I think but I don't pay much attention to them so I could be wrong.

For the majority of people, cameras have gone far beyond what they need. No reason to get the latest crazy high pixel cameras.

 

[mshchem]

I had Nikon Auto focus lenses that I used (still use) with F5. I still use Nikon DSLRs. I also own a Fuji X camera. My first digital camera that I owned was a used Nikon Coolpix 990. 3.34 megapixels, I still own it slow! Takes beautiful pictures.

I would look for used, lightly used, pro models. I sold a Nikon D3, I upgraded, that was one of my favorites, I paid $750 for it, very low usage. That was several years ago.

 

[McDiesel]

I'm curious how everyone chooses a camera.
I'm in the market for a new camera but it's just damn hard to decide what to buy since there are literally 100s of camera models on the market (including used) to choose from.

Easy! Look for models that look and operate like cameras, not like computers. Less LCDs, less menus, more dedicated dials, including aperture rings on lenses. Then you realize that there's just one camera manufacturer worth even considering - Fujifilm. They also happen to make superb glass.

Everything else is just a computer with a lens. Just like an iPhone just bulkier and with worse software.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm curious how everyone chooses a camera.
I'm in the market for a new camera but it's just damn hard to decide what to buy since there are literally 100s of camera models on the market (including used) to choose from.
Obviously, marketing says I should buy the latest top of the line camera, but I don't believe it's necessary, which actually makes the choice harder.
There is literally a 10x price difference between the option that may give the necessary tools to take nice pictures.

Backstory:
I'm mostly shooting film, but I just don't have the time to process the film and even less to make actual darkroom prints, for this reason lately I tend to pick up my Canon 1000D for casual shooting.
I bought the 1000D because it was unbelievably cheap used, and I already have a nice collection of Canon lenses, but let's just say, it's not a very good camera, I'm mostly annoyed by the tiny viewfinder, and the abysmal AF which is a bad combination since it leads to a lot of out of focus pictures, and the smaller sensor is also a problem since my favorite lenses behave very differently on it, compared to when I'm shooting my Eos 1-n or Eos 33.
I used to have a Samsung Nx300 a few years ago, let's just say it didn't inspire me to go out and shoot with it and I missed the viewfinder, then I had a Sony a7R which I just hated for a multitude of reasons, but mostly for the worst shutter that shook the camera so much that it made the high res sensor worthless.

Actually, they made it very easy to chose one. They are all good but, they printed the word 'Nikon' on the really good once.

 

[guangong]

Easy! Look for models that look and operate like cameras, not like computers. Less LCDs, less menus, more dedicated dials, including aperture rings on lenses. Then you realize that there's just one camera manufacturer worth even considering - Fujifilm. They also happen to make superb glass.

Everything else is just a computer with a lens. Just like an iPhone just bulkier and with worse software.

Ditto. I wish I had said that.
My garage is on a cobblestone alley that is favored by local fashion schools for assignments. Every digital package, camera + bulky lens, is just too big to lug around. Bought a small digital Olympus Pen with manual focus for a planed trip to Rome in 2000, but trip cancelled. Pocketable and easy to carry. With a couple adapters can use with lenses already owned. I still prefer film and only use digital when immediate results required.
Olympus has viewfinder. How does anybody see screen on sunny day.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I'm probably the wrong person to ask since I haven't bought a new digital camera since around 2010, unless you count iPhones (I do). In that case I just bought my latest "camera," an iPhone 13 Pro, a month ago.

I bought this phone as I had been considering either updating my main digital camera, a Nikon D7000, or buying a Ricoh GRIII or GRIIIx. I didn't see any interchangeable lens digital camera available for less than about $1,500 (new) that would have been a huge improvement over my D7000, and I'm pretty heavily invested in Nikkor glass, so didn't want to jump ship for a minor improvement—although I do like the Fujifilm XT3 and XT4 a lot. I decided on the iPhone instead of one of the Ricohs mostly because I always have my iPhone with me, but I wasn't sure whether I would carry the Ricoh around everywhere once the novelty wore off. I've also heard enough reports of reliability problems with the GRs that I was a little cautious about buying one.

I find shooting with a digital camera a completely different experience than shooting film. I think all digital cameras, even the ones with aperture rings and shutter speed dials, are computers with lenses attached to them. I much prefer film, but I find when I'm shooting with my phone, it's a different enough experience from shooting with my film cameras that I don't make a direct comparison. It's easier to let go of my expectations and just enjoy shooting than when I'm trying to use my D7000 the same way I would my FE.

My iPhone takes pretty decent pictures too:

 

[Cholentpot]

I'm probably the wrong person to ask since I haven't bought a new digital camera since around 2010, unless you count iPhones (I do). In that case I just bought my latest "camera," an iPhone 13 Pro, a month ago.

I bought this phone as I had been considering either updating my main digital camera, a Nikon D7000, or buying a Ricoh GRIII or GRIIIx. I didn't see any interchangeable lens digital camera available for less than about $1,500 (new) that would have been a huge improvement over my D7000, and I'm pretty heavily invested in Nikkor glass, so didn't want to jump ship for a minor improvement—although I do like the Fujifilm XT3 and XT4 a lot. I decided on the iPhone instead of one of the Ricohs mostly because I always have my iPhone with me, but I wasn't sure whether I would carry the Ricoh around everywhere once the novelty wore off. I've also heard enough reports of reliability problems with the GRs that I was a little cautious about buying one.

I find shooting with a digital camera a completely different experience than shooting film. I think all digital cameras, even the ones with aperture rings and shutter speed dials, are computers with lenses attached to them. I much prefer film, but I find when I'm shooting with my phone, it's a different enough experience from shooting with my film cameras that I don't make a direct comparison. It's easier to let go of my expectations and just enjoy shooting than when I'm trying to use my D7000 the same way I would my FE.

My iPhone takes pretty decent pictures too:

View attachment 308459

Iphone is a $1,000+ camera, it's darn tootin' well take a good photo. That and all the amazing AI stuff they cram in there.

 

[KerrKid]

I looked for the best value on eBay. For me, that was a minty Nikon D200 with the kit lens for $94.77. It was the right camera for what I needed it for, which is blogging.

I don't regret the purchase but my iPhone sure is a lot handier and the pix are fine for most things. I also found out that people are not as put off by my using my iPhone to blog as I thought they would be.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...My iPhone takes pretty decent pictures too:

View attachment 308459

Iphone is a $1,000+ camera, it's darn tootin' well take a good photo. That and all the amazing AI stuff they cram in there.

That "AI stuff" doesn't seem to have been "amazing" enough to focus on the subject's eyes rather than the wall in front of the subject.

 

[Cholentpot]

That "AI stuff" doesn't seem to have been "amazing" enough to focus on the subject's eyes rather than the wall in front of the subject.

Camera is only as good as the finger.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Camera is only as good as the finger.

And an eye.

 

[Chan Tran]

I'm probably the wrong person to ask since I haven't bought a new digital camera since around 2010, unless you count iPhones (I do). In that case I just bought my latest "camera," an iPhone 13 Pro, a month ago.

I bought this phone as I had been considering either updating my main digital camera, a Nikon D7000, or buying a Ricoh GRIII or GRIIIx. I didn't see any interchangeable lens digital camera available for less than about $1,500 (new) that would have been a huge improvement over my D7000, and I'm pretty heavily invested in Nikkor glass, so didn't want to jump ship for a minor improvement—although I do like the Fujifilm XT3 and XT4 a lot. I decided on the iPhone instead of one of the Ricohs mostly because I always have my iPhone with me, but I wasn't sure whether I would carry the Ricoh around everywhere once the novelty wore off. I've also heard enough reports of reliability problems with the GRs that I was a little cautious about buying one.

I find shooting with a digital camera a completely different experience than shooting film. I think all digital cameras, even the ones with aperture rings and shutter speed dials, are computers with lenses attached to them. I much prefer film, but I find when I'm shooting with my phone, it's a different enough experience from shooting with my film cameras that I don't make a direct comparison. It's easier to let go of my expectations and just enjoy shooting than when I'm trying to use my D7000 the same way I would my FE.

My iPhone takes pretty decent pictures too:

View attachment 308459

It seems that the phone focused in front of the dog.

 

[Ces1um]

I'd go with a system that offers some computation photography in-camera. Like focus stacking, live composite, in-built nd filters, better autofocus systems, etc... They just expand the variety of photos you can take. I like my olympus m4/3 camera, although I don't think I'd recommend that sensor or brand anymore given that the industry is moving away from it and I worry about future support.
I'd figure out what your typical photo session looks like and look for a camera that offers features that complement it. Like if you hike far distances for your photo, then you'd probably want a light camera that takes up little room in a pack. If you prefer street photography, then maybe you want an unobtrusive camera with fast autofocus or the ability to lock focus at a set distance. If you're into macro then you want a camera with excellent low light performance. If you like taking spur of the moment snapshots, then maybe just your phone or a small point and shoot that you can easily always carry with you. Go back through your photo collection and see what the bulk of your photos were about.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I see what you mean but I don't think the iPhone focused in front of my dog. I shot in portrait mode, which lets you edit the DOF after the fact. The photo I posted had the portrait mode set at f/2.8. I backed it off to f/16 and her face looked the same. I think that was motion blur.

Also, at this time, the portrait mode effect only blurs the background behind the subject, not the foreground. I believe with the next iOS update, the portrait mode will also defocus the foreground, making the effect more realistic.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

When I started, I got a Canon 5D, the first version, because it was about the best value for money going at the time - full-frame sensor, relatively high resolution (for that time period- 2007-8ish), and it had the full range of Canon accessories and lenses available. After hauling it around for a couple years I realized that it wasn't just a brick, but a whole sack of bricks, and I wasn't using it very often. After hearing some rave reviews for the Fuji XT-1, I traded in all my Canon stuff and bought a used XT1 and a couple of lenses. I have never looked back - for one thing, the control layout on the Fuji is not only very straightforward and puts the major controls you want on the top of the camera as dials or buttons, but the control layout is strikingly similar to the Contax 35mm cameras I used to shoot with, so there was precious little learning curve to picking it up and getting the results I wanted. Being an APS-C sized sensor and mirrorless, it weighs a whole lot less than the Canon 5D did, so I'm very happy to shoot with it and I use it a lot more than I ever did the Canon. The lenses for it are also first-rate. I have since upgraded to an XT2 because it does have a higher resolution sensor, the auto-focus is improved, and the little joystick on the back that you can use to select the focus point is not where my nose will poke it when composing so I don't accidentally change the focus point.

 

[Cholentpot]

When I started, I got a Canon 5D, the first version, because it was about the best value for money going at the time - full-frame sensor, relatively high resolution (for that time period- 2007-8ish), and it had the full range of Canon accessories and lenses available. After hauling it around for a couple years I realized that it wasn't just a brick, but a whole sack of bricks, and I wasn't using it very often. After hearing some rave reviews for the Fuji XT-1, I traded in all my Canon stuff and bought a used XT1 and a couple of lenses. I have never looked back - for one thing, the control layout on the Fuji is not only very straightforward and puts the major controls you want on the top of the camera as dials or buttons, but the control layout is strikingly similar to the Contax 35mm cameras I used to shoot with, so there was precious little learning curve to picking it up and getting the results I wanted. Being an APS-C sized sensor and mirrorless, it weighs a whole lot less than the Canon 5D did, so I'm very happy to shoot with it and I use it a lot more than I ever did the Canon. The lenses for it are also first-rate. I have since upgraded to an XT2 because it does have a higher resolution sensor, the auto-focus is improved, and the little joystick on the back that you can use to select the focus point is not where my nose will poke it when composing so I don't accidentally change the focus point.

I rarely if ever take out my full frame DSLRs out for walk around. I suspect they're not even designed for that. They're workhorses. I use them on the job, they're almost perfect for paid gigs. As a walk around snapper? I'll pass almost every time. I use smaller simpler film cameras when off the clock.

 

[jtk]

I rarely if ever take out my full frame DSLRs out for walk around. I suspect they're not even designed for that. They're workhorses. I use them on the job, they're almost perfect for paid gigs. As a walk around snapper? I'll pass almost every time. I use smaller simpler film cameras when off the clock.

I "walk around" with a Leica M-sized 30mp DSLR. It's fundamentally point / frame/shoot same as traditional Leica technique. With Leica I rarely metered because I've got a lot of experience but with Pentax K70 I never meter because with a flip of a switch it brackets, which adjusts for contrast. as an alternative, if that's what I want. And of course it shoots panos, extreme macro, and (if I wanted, which I don't) video with sound.

 

[Cholentpot]

I "walk around" with a Leica M-sized 30mp DSLR. It's fundamentally point / frame/shoot same as traditional Leica technique. With Leica I rarely metered because I've got a lot of experience but with Pentax K70 I never meter because with a flip of a switch it brackets, which adjusts for contrast. as an alternative, if that's what I want. And of course it shoots panos, extreme macro, and (if I wanted, which I don't) video with sound.

If there's a working built in meter I use it and base readings somewhere off of it. If not I just guess and hope for the best.