firtree Loc: Florida, USA

Motorbones Loc: Fair Oaks, CA

This is a great approach...

jrh1354 Loc: Dayton, Ohio

I'm betting that a true beginner would be overwhelmed by a D850. Even a D3400 could be too much. The newbee would just set the camera to full automatic and shoot away without ever really learning what photography is all about. I bought my 22-year old son a D3100 and he still doesn't know how to shoot in manual. And his photos show it. You might want to compare cameras and cars. Are you going to buy your son a McLaren or a GT500 as his first car? I don't think so; unless your name is Andretti. Just my $0.02 worth.

Motorbones Loc: Fair Oaks, CA

I first learned about photography (on a limited basis) in high school when I became the photography editor of the school yearbook. In order to shoot, I had to understand about aperture, shutter speed, and film speed (ASA back then). Things like depth of field and other nuances came with time and I did it on either a Pentax H1a of H3v using a Vivitar manual light meter shooting mostly B&W. I also did my own darkroom work to save money for the school. I bought a Pentax Spotmatic IIa with a flash just before graduating. I thought it a great camera since the light meter was built into the view finder and made things a lot easier. My point is that back then you had to learn about some of the things that are not as prevalent a need with the DSLR Auto settings of today. I had to take time to learn enough about the camera of today to learn how to shoot manually which back then was the norm. People today think that so long as the use the auto setting, they'll get the best results with a good clear pic of their kid playing soccer. As I'm learning more about the camera and what it can do, the more excited I get about doing something with it. Those just starting out can be very overwhelmed by what's available (not to mention having a limited budget)... That is until they spend some time pursuing it and discover there's so much more one can create with today's camera. They get the starter and in many cases end up buying one to three more cameras before finding their niche. In our instant gratification world we live in today, folks want it easy and fast.... then after time... they start discovering the truth about what they can really do with a little time and effort... Let's face it folks... the process of discovery can be one of the great joyful aspects of "getting into photography". What I like seeing is when a seasoned professional or other uber experienced photographer can step back, help out, and enjoy watching others getting to know more about the real art of photography... and take delight in that rather than just seeing newer photographers only as wanna-bes...

glyphtrix

IF (and the operating word here is "IF")
If you CAN"T set any or as many of the settings as you need or desire because the manufacturer's control system is vastly than your experience - then what ELSE there is to know would be HOW, EXACTLY, to accomplish that.
Since it can't be done wrote, out of habit, or without combing through the manual to find out how the brand-centric "soft buttons" work and then how to program them to your desired workflow needs.

then what else is there to know:
IS HOW TO DO ANY OF IT ALL.
It requires RE-learning.

As just one example: When you go from old school Canon to New SONY a With-assignable-soft- buttons-and-Tri navi-controls
NOBODY just flies on auto pilot hitting various controls "as a reference" ONE MUST read AND UNDERSTAND the manual in order to even glean HOW to operate the device at all; just to even know where the controls are.

"What else is there to know"
becomes "EVERYTHING" - all over again.
Hence the frustration.

The point being reinforced - yet again- is that someone without prior photography experience: I.E. a beginner can be overwhelmed with pro gear that's beyond their capacity to use to the point of quitting photography WHICH IS WHY an easier to use starter camera is a reasonable starting point.
PS:
To relate this to "audio"

Just because one could run a Newmark, or Technics mixer perfectly enough to even work as a Daft Punk DJ..
doesn't mean
that you can run an FM board for Clearchannel.
(and IVE worked for Clearchannel).

Youre gonna need a manual or input from somebody who knows the specific boards cold.
Despite you're knowing "ALL the required processes".

TBPJr Loc: South Carolina

I've read all this conversation (through page 5, if I am slow posting), and I can easily see why one should consider a so-called starter camera: the top-end cameras and glass very quickly top $7,000 for someone to cover the focal length span of the kit zooms with a full-frame camera (an extensive set of primes could cost three times that much). I just checked Sam's Club online--a Canon Rebel 6Ti kit with two lenses, a bag, a 32-Gb SD card, and some accessories, is on sale for $899; the 6T kit is $599; a 60D with one STM lens is $2,099; a Nikon D3400 kit is $549, and a D5600 kit is $849.

I have a .pdf of my receipt for my entry into digital photography (I am not counting the Kodak 1-Mp camera I used sparingly in my office earlier): in 2005, I bought a Canon 20D with the kit EF-S 18-55 lens, a camera case (shoulder bag for just the camera and lens, with a small accessory pocket), and a 1-Gb Lexar CF card ($140 by itself), that ended up totaling $1,750. The 20D had an 8-Mp sensor and a top ISO setting of 1600, and it was noisy at that setting.

One can get a kit that will let one take much better pictures with much more flexibility and many more choices than the 20D for less than half, or just a little more, of what the 20D cost in 2005--and that's dollars to dollars, let alone accounting for inflation. The compromise in inherent picture quality between the kits noted above and a Canon 5D Mark IV with EF 24-70mm f/2.8 and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses (or even the f/4 versions) or a Nikon D850 and equivalent glass is not large, especially compared to the differences in price. For those who are testing their enthusiasm and interest, or who only want a decent camera to take family photos, the answer is obvious, absent unlimited funds--the kits are the place to start. The most expensive kit above, the 60D (admittedly, the older version with a lesser lens), is less than half what one must spend to get the 5DIV or the D850 with a kit lens; the others are not even half the cost of one of the fast zoom lenses at the top of the scale. One could easily keep a kit as a spare after deciding to move to a top-of-the-line system, or pass the kit along to someone else who wants to explore--the investment in the kit is just not large compared to the move to the best full-frames.

For what it's worth, I thought the change from the Canon A-1 to the 20D was much bigger in terms of complexity and flexibility that the move from no camera to the FTb and then to the A-1. I suspect that the learning curve from a point-and-shoot or a cell phone camera to any of these kits is plenty of work; while I have long since chosen to go with a more complex full-frame system doesn't mean it's the best starting point.

pendennis

In the film days, you could get a real starter camera like a Yashica Electro 35, or similar Canon and Minolta cameras, which allowed you to shoot in an "automatic" mode, so you could concentrate on things like composition and focus. Putting f stops and shutter speeds in the mix can be a turn off, even though it's all algorithmic. My starter was even more basic with an Argus C3 and an old Weston Master hand held meter.

Of course, the beginner, if he/she wants to do more than point and shoot, can use their phone camera, a P/S non-SLR, or a bridge camera. These are the beginner's tools and they should be considered a teaching device, with no hope of a cash return. The investment is the learning experience the beginner gets for his/her bucks.

Although they're long out of print, Kodak's Photography Encyclopaedia is an excellent resource for learning the basics.

The "trouble" with photography, is that it's not really intuitive. There are too many inputs and variables to easily create good results. Of course the value of digital photography is that your results don't cost you $10/roll for film development. You can hide your disasters with the delete function.

My wife won't touch my D500 and D750, and she completely ignores my film cameras. But give her my old Nikon Cool Pix 3400, and she does just fine.

Edia Loc: Central New Jersey

I find this argument to be comical. There is no such thing as a starter camera, only starter photographers. Costco sells a Nikon D3400 with two kit lenses for about $500 and the Nikon D7500 with the same two lenses for about $1600. Is the D7500 three times better at taking photos than the D3400? I think not. A proficient photographer can produce great shots with the D3400 and a beginner will get lousy results with the D7500. The D7500 has more bells and whistles than the D3400 but for most photographic subjects they will produce equivalent results.

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

Several reasons to produce more than a single model of anything, including cameras. For the camera market, size,weight, and complexity are three that probably rest at the top of the heap. How many posts have you observed here decrying the weight of a ff body and long lens.

Your thoughts are in the right direction, but unlikely to ever even approach such a move.

kdogg Loc: Gallipolis Ferry WV

Here Here you hit the nail on the head!

jcarlosjr Loc: Orange County

I have been teaching Photoshop and Photoshop Elements at community centers for over 15 years, mostly to “mature” students. In all of that time I have seen little correlation of image visualization to the cost of equipment. Many times a student work will knock me out; then I see it was taken with a low cost camera, maybe even a point and shoot, and very often at full automatic. But the image is fantastic!

Isn’t the point of photography to capture an image that evokes emotion, or memories?

I have been a member of many clubs over the last 50 years or so, and so often the gearheads try and intimidate the newbies with the emphasis on the equipment instead of the eye. What many of the equipment snobs will consider a starter camera is what this level of enthusiast considers an upgrade from a low cost P&S.

If my students were shooting for a national magazine, I would definitely advise them to consider something more advanced than a Canon T6 or SL2. If their livelihood depended on their work, sure spend more money. But for a vast majority of the people moving up (that means this really is not a starter camera, but instead an inexpensive ILC, since it is not their first camera).

I will challenge all of the gearheads suggesting a person start with a top-of-the line camera to walk into some studios and find a majority of the professional working photographers are still using the first camera they bought. NOT!

For most, photography is a hobby, and like all hobbies it is a choice of how we spend our disposable income. I would much more suggest to a new enthusiast they spend less on the equipment and more on vacations to put themselves in settings and situations where they have the opportunity to learn to appreciate the visual images their tool can capture.

P.S. I am a cycling enthusiast, my pride and joy is a set of two wheels attached to some tubes and shiny stuff that cost about $8k. If someone told me when I was starting out this was needed to learn my sport, I would never have gotten on a bike and missed many miles of scenic countryside while I advanced though over a dozen equipment upgrades starting with a $125 Schwinn (1965 dollars)

Take pictures and share the results, stop comparing "tools"

Motorbones Loc: Fair Oaks, CA

I agree with you in what you're saying. Life is a package deal and there's a lot to appreciate both through and beyond photography... I like model railroading, riding a Harley, traveling, and few other things as well....

wellsdl

Buying an inexpensive starter can be an excellent way to start. If you've decided you're interested it may take awhile to discover what you want to photograph. Once you make that choice, more investment may be warranted.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

I am blessed/cursed with being " a jack of many trades and master of none". in 79 yrs I've never let it hold me back. my development as a photographer has been limited by cost, potential talent, and the time and decipline to see how far I could develop. my interest started in my early teens. I read a lot of photo mags. for 4 yrs I use to stop at a notions store that had a case with about ten different Kodak cameras. all 35mm with various adjustments. it's been a long trip from a brownie"bullseye" to a pentax 645D. in most of my interest I've become adequate to competent. I live with that. I a few instances I've bought near top-of- the- line "hobby tools". because I could. my suggestion is buy a used moderately priced model of the type and brand that interest you. up grade as you reach the limits of each one.

sorry, I got carried away and gave my $0.79's worth.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

When you go into a camera shop....the first question is 'budget'. It is also unlikely that you walk out with 'just the camera'. There are 'must have's' like extra long lens, tripod, camera bag,memory cards, UV filters to protect the lens, etc etc...So the initial 'Camera cost' is depressed.
'What do you want to shoot' is another favourite question.....As if that makes the slightest difference to a beginner - or anyone else really. Say people....need an off camera flash...silver reflector, gold reflector etc etc
Landscapes need CP filter and Ngrad filter.Wide angle lens etc.
Oh' and then you'll need software.....PSE on offer! So much better than the manufacturer's free disk....!
The best camera - for the beginner's budget...is now the cheapest - so that you can walk out with a bag full of 'goodies'.

It is only when you understand a little more...that you realise 'They saw you coming'.