Getting into photography

CrazyBee787

I did a city and guilds photography course which lasted about a year, it was great I was shown a few good things with the DSLR camera. The course itself was very enjoyable throughout learning different things along the way, and a great way to meet people also keen to learn. I had the cheapest brand new DSLR I still have some 15 years later, although a bit outdated but I have a 50mm lens good for portrait also the cheapest lens you can buy plus it comes with a zoom lens (Which means you can change the focal length) all things you will learn in the course. Enjoy!

Glad

If you are on social media, there are some good photography groups on Facebook, some of them also sell used photography equipment. They are all happy to give advice to budding photographers

Farway

When you do decide on method, camera or phone, look on Youtube for reviews before you buy, you may find a flaw you were unaware of, or reinforcement of your choice

Albermarle

In general 'point and shoot' cameras, that just have one fixed lens and easy operation have been largely superseded by mobile phone cameras.
However some people still prefer to use an actual camera, one advantage is that it can be easier to frame the shots through a cameral viewfinder, and easier to hold it steady ( in my limited experience).
You can get them pretty small ( although if too small you lose some of the advantages and the controls can be quite fiddly) 
Otherwise you are mainly looking at the bigger, higher tech cameras with the faff of interchangeable lenses, although some are more of a medium size.

DullGreyGuy

Albermarle said:

In general 'point and shoot' cameras, that just have one fixed lens and easy operation have been largely superseded by mobile phone cameras.
However some people still prefer to use an actual camera, one advantage is that it can be easier to frame the shots through a cameral viewfinder, and easier to hold it steady ( in my limited experience).
You can get them pretty small ( although if too small you lose some of the advantages and the controls can be quite fiddly) 
Otherwise you are mainly looking at the bigger, higher tech cameras with the faff of interchangeable lenses, although some are more of a medium size.

Many point & shoot cameras dont have view finders either so have the same issues as a phone, some that do it doesn't go through the sensor and whilst there are "corrections" built in the reality is you won't get 100% the same as the view finder shows in all cases. 

The main advantage of a true camera is the size of its sensor (normally described in relation to a 35mm film). An iPhone at 1x describes itself as 24mm equivalent however the lens is actually 6.86mm but its sensor is tiny hence it's such a high multiple to get an equivalent. When you are considering things like depth of field and bohken (the amount of a scene thats actually in focus and how the out of focus elements look) its the true lens length that matters not its 35mm film equivalent. 

The downside of basic point and shoot camera is that they still have a fairly small sensor but dont have a phones wizardry to fake the DoF and bohken. It's debatable how good phones fake it but you can turn it off whereas most P&S camera you can't have it at all.

Second consideration of sensor size is noise, you tend to get less the bigger the sensor but in noise reduction software in both cameras and phones has improved vastly. My first digital camera had an ISO that went up to 1,600 but anything over 800 would have a lot of noise. The current models can go up to 51,200 and have seen photos using over 25,000 that look much cleaner than 800 used to look on mine. 

One of the reason SLRs and their mirrorless equivalents is because of the size of the sensor. Micro 3/4 are 50% size of sensor and those cameras are normally smaller than the APS-C which are 63% of a sensor and "Full Frame" are bigger still and theirs is the same size as 35mm film. 

CliveOfIndia

Another point to consider, if you want to go down the SLR route, is lenses.  It's something of an old chestnut but still relevant - choosing the right lenses for the type of photography you want to do is an important consideration.  And good-quality lenses are not cheap, but will have a major impact on the quality of the image.  It's often said that one approach is to buy a relatively cheap body (within reason) and allocate the majority of your budget to good-quality lenses, relevant to what you're trying to achieve.

And particularly with a DSLR, you can have the camera body capable of capturing/processing a squillion pixels - but that's not much good if you've got a rubbish lens attached to it.  Of course, in reality it's always something of a balancing act, but worth bearing in mind.

madlyn

Thank you all for you responses.
I like to photograph anything and everything and I do have a smartphone, but the camera is not great and the options within the camera are not great, but it is about 3 years old.

DullGreyGuy

CliveOfIndia said:

Another point to consider, if you want to go down the SLR route, is lenses.  It's something of an old chestnut but still relevant - choosing the right lenses for the type of photography you want to do is an important consideration.  And good-quality lenses are not cheap, but will have a major impact on the quality of the image.  It's often said that one approach is to buy a relatively cheap body (within reason) and allocate the majority of your budget to good-quality lenses, relevant to what you're trying to achieve.

And particularly with a DSLR, you can have the camera body capable of capturing/processing a squillion pixels - but that's not much good if you've got a rubbish lens attached to it.  Of course, in reality it's always something of a balancing act, but worth bearing in mind.

Same applies to mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses.

In principle things will be limited by the weakest link, the advantage of better lenses is that you can change the body to a higher grade and keep all your lenses (noting the previous caveat of lenses that only work on APS-C or smaller sensors) but its also a great way for camera companies to create lock in because if your replacing your Canon camera your choice is to stick with Canon and continue benefiting from all the lenses or switch to Nikon, Sony etc and have to replace all the lenses too. 

The one counter point though is weight distribution... sure you can stick 800mm L lens on a R100 camera body but it will feel very front heavy whereas put it on an R1 thats almost 3 times the weight and whilst it'll be heavier overall it does feel more balanced. Putting the pro-grade lenses on the consumer grade bodies work fine but handle isnt great

Albermarle

DullGreyGuy said:

Albermarle said:

In general 'point and shoot' cameras, that just have one fixed lens and easy operation have been largely superseded by mobile phone cameras.
However some people still prefer to use an actual camera, one advantage is that it can be easier to frame the shots through a cameral viewfinder, and easier to hold it steady ( in my limited experience).
You can get them pretty small ( although if too small you lose some of the advantages and the controls can be quite fiddly) 
Otherwise you are mainly looking at the bigger, higher tech cameras with the faff of interchangeable lenses, although some are more of a medium size.

Many point & shoot cameras dont have view finders either so have the same issues as a phone, some that do it doesn't go through the sensor and whilst there are "corrections" built in the reality is you won't get 100% the same as the view finder shows in all cases. 

The main advantage of a true camera is the size of its sensor (normally described in relation to a 35mm film). An iPhone at 1x describes itself as 24mm equivalent however the lens is actually 6.86mm but its sensor is tiny hence it's such a high multiple to get an equivalent. When you are considering things like depth of field and bohken (the amount of a scene thats actually in focus and how the out of focus elements look) its the true lens length that matters not its 35mm film equivalent. 

The downside of basic point and shoot camera is that they still have a fairly small sensor but dont have a phones wizardry to fake the DoF and bohken. It's debatable how good phones fake it but you can turn it off whereas most P&S camera you can't have it at all.

Second consideration of sensor size is noise, you tend to get less the bigger the sensor but in noise reduction software in both cameras and phones has improved vastly. My first digital camera had an ISO that went up to 1,600 but anything over 800 would have a lot of noise. The current models can go up to 51,200 and have seen photos using over 25,000 that look much cleaner than 800 used to look on mine. 

One of the reason SLRs and their mirrorless equivalents is because of the size of the sensor. Micro 3/4 are 50% size of sensor and those cameras are normally smaller than the APS-C which are 63% of a sensor and "Full Frame" are bigger still and theirs is the same size as 35mm film. 

About 5 years ago, I started to take an interest in photography, but I am not the type to dive into hobbies too deeply/technically/expensively.
So I had no interest in having a camera with lots of interchangeable lenses ( or lugging them around), so looked at smaller ones with one fixed lens. Here there seemed to be three options;
1) A good quality camera with a big sensor, but just one fixed lens.
2) A Bridge camera - small sensor but huge zoom range ( also not so small/light)
3) A point and shoot, often with a reasonable zoom but a small sensor. As you say some without a viewfinder, or not a very good one. Compact and lightweight.

I searched for some middle ground and found this.( review is from when it was launched in 2013)
Olympus Stylus 1 Review | Photography Blog

A fixed zoom lens, with a constant aperture, in a medium weight/ coat pocket size, but with a large menu of options, like in a more expensive camera. It sits in the hand nicely, and has a good viewfinder and screen display. Despite the sensor not being that big it seem to take good enough pictures, also in low light. Difficult to get a good bokeh effect though.

They stopped making them around 2018 due to the 'mobile phone effect' despite them being more advanced than your average point and shoot.

OP - You could say this is a good beginner camera, especially if you do not want anything too bulky and/or expensive - one or two steps above a standard point and shoot, and maybe a stepping stone to better things later. Seem to be a few around second hand at about £300, which is how much I paid 5 years ago, so holding their value as a bit of a niche product I guess. 

twopenny

If you are just starting perhaps a basic point and shoot. I had a pocket Samsung but you can get a second hand Lumix of the same type.

They take good photos and a good way to get started.

Downside is that usually you are using a screen and sunlight can stop you seeing what you are taking. But they are a good way to see what you want to do more of. £60+

This will do Macro as well as some distance.

I then found for me it was the zoom I needed to take wildlife, came on here and found a good second hand Coolpix with a 60x zoom. It has a view finder which I found was better for me to frame the shot. Also I'm shakey and it helped me to steady the thing having it up to my face, elbows into my body. Second hand £200+ but I've had so much fun with it.

A proper camera much more you can take.

With a phone it's ok if you have a steady hand but it takes time to go to settings and pick the right ones - by which time if it's something that doesn't stay still - you've missed it

Also see if there's a camera club near you. Seeing what other people do and getting advice is useful.