My 15 year old is very interested in photography. He has a cheap camera that he bought with his own money last year, and has modified it to be able to change lenses and do other things he wants. I'm considering buying him a real camera- a digital SLR, which might run me about $500-$800. Now, he hasn't had any training, and I'm not a photographer, so I found a series of courses at our community college that teach photography. Digital SLR Series Between the camera and those courses, I'm looking at no less than $1000. :aargh4: Before we even consider dropping that kind of money, I need to hear from photography folks. Is this a good investment? What can he "do" with this kind of certificate as a teen can he earn some money on the side? Is this the kind of thing "everyone" jumps on and is more of just a hobby? If so, that's fine, I just want to know it going in. Any suggestions would be welcome!
I live in a small town that is surrounded by other small towns. Each town has a little local newspaper, may of which are free and just show up in your mailbox every week. It seems like they're always looking for people to go to the local basketball/football/soccer games to take a few pictures of the local kids in their competitions. This is also true of other activities such as little theatres, carnivals and various civic events. It probably pays terribly but for a teenager with an interest it might be just enough to keep the spark alive. I know it's a lot of money but a decent camera will last a long time if treated properly and the skills will last a lifetime.
thanks! That's a great idea. He isn't terribly excited about the class, but in my opinion, before we'd shell out that kind of cash, I'd really require it just so I know he's capable of using it properly. Thanks again!
My suggestion is for your son to take some classes before investing in a camera. He will (or should) learn what features to include on his camera. There are plenty of good cameras on the market for around $200.00.
We've had a hard time finding a class that doesn't have a prereq of a camera! They all specify to bring your camera!?
I've been an amateur photog for 30+ years. My take: (1) Starting to learn photography without a camera is like trying to learn to paint with no brush, or play guitar with no instrument. I play guitar, too. :smile: (2) SLRs are nice. But 90% of the people who own them do not NEED an SLR. Ian's remark is right-on. There are plenty of good cameras for around $200. Incidentally - a couple of professionals (who DO need SLRs) I know, agree with me that only a small percentage of SLR owners need that type of camera. (3) Non-SLR digitals have some advantages. I bought a non-SLR with a "long" zoom (Canon - around $200) so I can get pics of small critters, birds etc. It works fine - and to buy an SLR lens with such a "reach" (400mm+) would cost a LOT of money - likely more than the SLR camera body! I used SLRs almost exclusively in film days -- until I started taking pictures of my grandchildren. SLRs - especially when used manually - can be a bit cumbersome when chasing moving subjects. :smile: Classes are good, as Ian says. I think there's also bang for the buck in buying a good book first. The "Dummies Guide" is fine. I have one. There are also good free materials on the web, e.g. the entire Harvard (Extension) Digital Photography course. It's now available on YouTube. Photography is a great hobby - and nowadays it doesn't have to be as expensive as it once was - processing etc. With your computer as your darkroom -- you can get what you want, not what the gum-chewing button-presser at the printing-place gives you. Johann
I forgot to say that if your son is mechanicaly inclined it is possible to convert a film SLR to digital - search the internet for examples. I know astronomers who have done this. Good film cameras are amazingly bargains on ebay.
The prevailing sentiment seems to be that this is impractical for day-to-day purposes, Ian. Example: Nikon patents revive the dream of a digital back for film SLRs?: Digital Photography Review And yes - good film cameras are cheap. hardly anybody wants 'em. Johann
ok, so since the class set I posted a link to is the only thing I can find locally right now, can one of you with more camera acumen look at the link? That class requires him to use an SLR camera (which, I confess, I have no idea what that is) but since posting this I also have another idea. I have a neighbor who is a bit of a big deal sports photographer. I don't know if he'd be willing to mentor my son or even just speak to him, we've only had small talk until now.
I think it would be good to get pointers from the sports photographer - especially if that's a sort of photography your son thinks he might like. Any pro can shorten the way to acquiring skills. SLR = single-lens reflex. A camera that can take interchangeable lenses. SLR cameras have a prism inside that redirects incoming light - hence the term "reflex." They're the most expensive class of cameras. I have two very old film SLRs - one, a Mamiya, is almost 50 years old. The other is a Nikon EM - which was thought of as a "lady's purse-Nikon," not a "real" one. I paid $50 for each, second-hand, and another $250 on 3 lenses (2 used) for the Nikon. I had 30 good years with the Mamiya and 25 or so with the Nikon. I doubt I could get $25 for the pair of them now, not that I care. Neither has been out of my desk drawer for years. I was going to do some night pictures with the Nikon, but I find my newer Canon digital does such pictures very easily and very well. It's manual or automatic - you can set shutter speed, f-stop and focus manually, or let the camera do all this for you. I'd buy a digital SLR, except that I don't need one. Your mileage may vary. If I were a pro - one would be indispensable. They're great - and if you spend a ton of money on lenses, etc. you can do anything with them. As I mentioned before, non-SLRs have certain advantages, e.g. wide-to-very-long focal length in one lens, in a modestly-priced camera. A long lens for an SLR can be frightfully expensive. Here in Canada, a beginner's SLR with one lens - a wide-to-normal zoom, costs $500 to $600. Add $280 or so for one extra lens - a longer zoom (around 270 mm). It's probably a bit less in the US. That's a lot to spend, in advance of your teenager's first lesson. You can make your own choice on this, but I wouldn't do anything that would necessitate anyone's having to "make money back" to defray the initial outlay. Maybe it's just me, but isn't that a bit like sending one's offspring off to his first guitar lesson, with the most expensive guitar in the shop - expecting that he'll soon be playing gigs to recoup the cost? Such a thing could happen - but how likely is it? Both photography and music can be precarious, money-wise, even for the very talented. But -- that's up to you and your son, not me. :smile: I don't feel qualified to comment on the courses, as the only photography course I've ever taken was the freebie version of the Harvard Extension one I couldn't pass up. From day one till now, I've learned from my pictures. If I compose, focus or expose wrongly -- it shows and I learn something. Ditto, if it comes out right! I've learned from other photographers - pros and serious amateurs - and I have quite a few books. It's been a great hobby but never a career - and for me, that's been fine. I hope this helps. Johann
This is also an interest of mine but I confess that I don't know very much about it. To me it reminds me of when I was a kid trying to buy my first computer. You read the reviews and go to the stores and half the time the products in the magazines are obsolete before you can buy something. I know Nikon is a good brand and so is Canon but within those brands there are sooo many model choices. I don't really want to spend $1,000. for a camera and one additional lens but I like the versatility. I have more of an interest in close up photos (like little bugs or parts of flowers, etc.) and so I'd be interested in something that has that kind of capacity. Any suggestions?
I like doing close ups too - bees, snails, flowers, you name it. Plenty of digital cameras at $200 or less will do them well - and do a whole lot more. My choice would be the Canon Powershot SX-160 IS. It should be well under $200; it sells for about $177 at Walmart here in Canada. Porbably less on your side of the border. No --I don't work for Canon, or Walmart. Here are my reasons: My first digital camera was a gift from my son - a Canon A-420, five or maybe six years ago. It still works fine and I use it almost daily. I tried out the macro mode when I got it (that's the button for close ups) and I was totally surprised (in a good way) by the results. Later, when I wanted a camera with a longer zoom - for rabbits, squirrels, birds etc. mostly - I read a few reviews and there was one of the Canon SX120 - the direct ancestor of the camera I recommended. The reviewer said basically that it seemed OK and here are some pictures he'd taken. Wow! The pictures sold me and I bought the SX-120 the next day. That was about 3 years back -maybe 4, I can't remember. It takes better night pictures than my older one and zooms to the equivalent of 360mm. The SX160 is a distinct improvement over my SX120. The resolution is now 16 Megapixels - four times that of my older camera and 1.6 times that of my SX120. They get better every year. I was a fan of Nikon in film days and I'm sure there's nothing wrong with their current digital cameras. If you don't want a Canon for some reason, check Nikon out. They should have something that does what you want in the $200 range. I know they do. As I said - digital cameras get better every year. My newer Canon has a 10x zoom - 36mm to 360mm. I think the SX-160 has a 16x zoom. Some in the same price range or a little higher now have up to 30x zoom - around 24 mm to 720 mm. Now if you hang a 720mm lens on an SLR - it's going to be a monster! And it'll be tough to shlep it around without a car, because you'll probably have to sell the car to buy the lens! The capability that can be packed into a small non-SLR digital camera is simply amazing! Fuji make some low-priced cameras - $200 or sometimes way less that have 30x zooms or thereabouts. Their film cameras were decent, but mostly unremarkable. I don't really know how the Fuji digitals stand up, in general - but my daughter-in-law has a Fuji that was at least 7-8 years old when it finally broke, so... You can now get $200-$300 digital cameras that have lenses made by the hallowed names of old. I see Leica lenses on today's Panasonic-Lumix cameras and a while ago I saw some Carl Zeiss lenses on Sony models. I've also seem Kodak digitals with Schneider lenses - another famous old name - but I wasn't crazy about the other parts of those cameras. My take - look at them all. Then buy the Canon. You'll be happy. :smile: Johann
This is so helpful Johann, thanks. I have to take this all in, I really appreciate your insight and advice. Funny about "making it back" which probably came out wrong lol. I didn't mean that exactly. I guess what I meant was that he would, if there were an opportunity, enjoy earning a bit of spending money with his photography. He loves to take pictures now for fun. He has a camera that does not allow him to change lenses, however, he hacked it and added threads so that he could buy lenses to add. He shops craigslist and thus far has funded his hobby 100%. I wouldn't expect him to pay me anything, I'm just thinking out loud that if he wanted to fund his hobby, I wonder if there are potential ways he could earn money with this. P.S. I've devised a plan to have the sports photographer over for a beer. I'll let you know how it goes
Of course there's nothing wrong with hoping to make a bit of money. It's entirely possible he might, if he's at the right place at the right time. A guy I met years ago started taking and selling a few pictures of local stock-car races. He became the track's regular photographer and for some time, made significant money that way. Not every aspiring photographer manages this, of course. I didn't, but then I wasn't looking for it. I earned my pay in "cubicle hell" for many years and had fun (and went to school) after work. :smile: But I'm OK with my choice. Sorry I misunderstood about "making it back." Your son sounds like a very ingenious young man. I'd be interested in knowing what make and model of camera he successfully hacked in this fashion -and what lenses he has been able to attach. I know one can buy adaptors to affix old screw-mount lenses - some of which are very, very good - but taking a camera that doesn't allow for any lens-change and then adapting it - that's ingenuity of a whole other level. My hat's off to him! :smile: Johann '
