I ought to write a longform article, for ordinary normal regular non-enthusiast people, about how to pick a camera. For enthusiasts, it could double as an article about how to recommend a camera purchase to ordinary normal regular friends and relatives who ask us for advice.
The only reason I'm saying this is that I'd never actually finish such a thing, so here are a few notes on the subject.
The guy at the camera store
To begin with, I'd write about how you shouldn't scorn the counterman. Yeah, there are a lot of pitfalls in just believing the guy in the camera store—you have to make sure you're at a camera store, i.e., that you've found a real camera store and aren't talking to a know-nothing teenager at Wool-mart or Best Buck. You'd like to know that the person you're talking to has some experience in the job. And you need to ascertain that he doesn't have any conflicts of interest—ask him if he's on commission. If he says yes to that last, there's no need to walk away—just be sure to stick to your guns about your chosen price range.
But good counterpeople (I've known mostly males, but some females too) can be great. Often they're real photo enthusiasts, and they are likely to know a lot more about the ins and outs of the current product lineup than other enthusiasts. I must admit I do it less now than I used to, but I've always cultivated friendships with good camera-store counterpeople—they're knowledgeable, and fun to talk to, and you'll learn something from them about current products. I've gone so far as to buy things from people who've given me a lot of their time, just to support them, even if I pay more.
Price
Next you have to interrogate your subject and find out an important preference...namely, budget.
As far as that's concerned, I'd recommend that you don't try to depart from what you're being told. Money means very different things to different people; what you might consider "barely any difference" might well mean a week's groceries to the person you're advising. Works the other way, too, of course—if someone has a budget of $2,000, well, then they want an expensive, nice, new camera, and if you tell them a $750 camera will be just as good you won't actually be doing them any favors. Maybe they're flexible; good to know. But if someone has a firm budget, well, that's what they want to spend. Assume that they know better than you do what they're comfortable with.
Three choices
(Adam Isler suggested this, the other day.)
In Barry Schwartz's The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less
[UPDATE: You've got to read Ben Rothfeld's Featured Comment below. Priceless. —Ed.]
Prestige
Don't forget that a camera is a nonessential purchase, and not a truly major purchase for most people. It's not necessarily a "luxury" item, but it leans more toward that than, say, a washer-dryer does. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of times, people don't want something that's "good enough"—even if, or perhaps especially if, they're not going to devote a decent chunk of money to the budget. This is why Canon and Nikon (still) sell a whole lot of entry-level DSLRs—not just that they're quite good cameras, which they are, but that many people would prefer to have a "real" camera (SLR) from a top name brand, for pride. (The leaders are the current Canon Rebel T5 and the Nikon D3200) I think we're sort of at the end of the era where a DSLR still retains that status, but the old impression, a legacy from 35mm days, still holds on.
So you might find that some people don't want to be sold a newfangled mirrorless camera from a worldwide electronics juggernaut.
Even so, I think I agree with a commenter the other day (I've looked, but can't find the reference) who suggested the Panasonic LX100
Panasonic LX100: Good recommendation
It's got a large sensor (compared to amateur cameras), a Leica-branded lens that zooms and that has a good range of focal lengths, and, importantly, it stands a good chance of being something that people will enjoy using once they learn how to use it. Yet it's quite compact and, at $800, comes with a good dose of pride of ownership while not breaking the bank.
Here are a few comments about the LX100 plucked from consumer reviews (I've corrected the punctuation in some cases):
"Nearest camera to a '60s Leica that I have found."
"More than I hoped it would be."
"It is so small it can fit in my handbag during the day so I am ready at all times."
"Focus is super-fast so even with action shots it will fire off singles as fast as you can push the button."
"Allows me full control over all aspects of the creative process."
"The build and image quality of this camera are both top of the line."
Beware the tele wrinkle
I've never been much of a fan of "bridge cameras," which have tiny sensors and superzoom lenses. A great one is the Panasonic FZ200, which only(!) goes to 600mm-equivalent but has a constant-aperture lens. However, I know that some people, including my brother and our cousin Ham, love 'em, because they love to be able to zoom way in on birds and wildlife. (The FZ200 was named the best camera for wildlife—for amateur snappers, I presume—by the British magazine What Digital Camera.) And consider that some people love to shoot their kids playing sports. So that would be one more wrinkle that you'd have to ask about up front.
Conclusion
I don't know, what do you think of the LX100 as a generalized recommendation? Even as I write this, I'm having creeping doubts. Perhaps the LX100 is too enthusiast-y, meant to appeal to more serious, more dedicated photographers, and maybe I like it because it's best suited for the kind of slice o' life, look-of-the-world type of shooting that I myself prefer.
What's probably most true is that one general, all-purpose, one-size-fits-all recommendation isn't possible. When people ask you for advice as to what camera they should buy, you really do have to spend some time interrogating them as to how much they want to spend, whether they want a pocket camera or not, whether they prefer a fixed lens or want to be able to buy other lenses, whether they demand a "serious" Canon or Nikon to feel comfortable, whether they are delighted by the idea of very long zooms that can zero in on a distant chipmunk from the back deck or a grazing wildebeest—or little Wandra drifting about a huge field playing soccer—whether they care about low-light ability (goes to the size of the sensor), and whether they are going to spend some time learning about their camera, or aren't likely to.
And, frankly, even if boiling everything down to one was the aim, and was agreed to be a valid aim, still there are lots of serviceable recommendations, not just one.
Mike
(Thanks to several commenters)
Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Ed Eubanks: "I worked in photo retail for several years in the '90s. This was never something I aspired to, career-wise; rather, it was one fraction of my overall professional photography experience, which itself has never been my full-time gig. I worked alongside a number of lifers, though, including more than a couple who had been in camera sales for more than a decade. Almost all of our staff were serious photographers, and a handful of us did a good bit of freelance work on the side (weddings, portraits, headshots, product shots, architectural work, concert photography, sports photography, event photography, working with the Associated Press—I got opportunities to do all of the above for pay through my connections at the camera stores I worked for).
"We had one colleague whose favorite camera to nudge buyers toward was always the one that paid the most in spiffs (think: commissions, but paid by manufacturers instead of the selling store). He was willing to tell people only part of the 'story' if he thought it would generate more sales. Usually his spiff checks were the highest, it's true—but he also had the highest rate of returned sales, as well, and eventually was encouraged to move along to another store by the owners (who, I assume, could do the math and see what he was up to).
"The two guys I worked with the longest—and for whom I had the most respect for as sales professionals—modeled for me what became my practice, as well: help the customer figure out what they want and need in a camera, and then sell them exactly that (and nothing more or less). This often meant a lot of sales of Canon Rebels and Nikon N50s, instead of the nicer (with higher spiffs) Elan II or N90s models—but then, our customers remembered us when they were ready for a second lens, a speedlight, or some accessory or other; they came back because they knew we would help them find what they really wanted and not try to up-sell them.
"In my experience, most guys working in camera stores are this way; they are delighted that someone is taking an interest in one of their favorite things, and want to give them the best introduction to it that they can. But buyers should be aware that the other type of salesman is still around, and always will be. (Worst case: if you have to take it back to the store, then ask to work with someone else. The odds of there being two spiff-minded salesmen in the same camera shop are slim indeed.)"
JG: "With regard to recommending the LX100, on the very rare occasion when I am asked by friends for a recommendation, their budget limit is nowhere near $800. I'm just sayin'....
"Except once, when a coworker said she was willing to spend $1,500, then actually spent $2,300 after the salesman upsold her to the camera above the one I recommended to her."
Kenneth Tanaka: "I can recall making camera recommendations four times in, say, the last five years. Thankfully, they've each turned out excellently with very happy owners. But I really, really don't feel comfortable doing it for two reasons. First, of course, a bad experience could sour a friendship. Second, and closely related to the first, I become the go-to source for follow-up support, something I really hate. So my resolution as of this year is never to recommend cameras to anyone. If asked I plan to feign some sort of neurological seizure or severe chest pains."
Mike replies: You know, that's a major point: "I become the go-to source for follow-up support," and thank you for pointing that out. That's happened to me many times, and it's...inconvenient, especially when people ask things like 'what does this button do?' and other questions that they could easily answer for themselves in a minute or two with the instruction manual.
Dennis (partial comment): "It's $800 for a fixed lens camera, so if/when it breaks, the whole thing needs to be replaced/repaired."
Mike replies: That's a good point too...you haven't invested in a lens that will go past the life of the camera.
Ben Rothfeld: "Funny story about Barry Schwartz, author of Paradox of Choice. I saw him speak about the topic and chatted with him afterwards. I don't know how cameras came up, but they did. He asked me for a recommendation. My response, by the way, was to tell him to take whatever sum he was comfortable parting with and buy the Canon compact that came closest to that number."
Bruce Mc (partial comment): "I like the LX100 as an all-around choice. I agree the knobs and buttons make it attractive to advanced users, but I think it could be accessible to new users as well."
Robert Roaldi (partial comment): "Somehow, I'd completely forgotten about the LX100. But if a non-photographer acquaintance asked me for advice, I would not recommend it. Their first objection would be, 'It doesn't zoom out far enough,' and from that it would never recover."
Steve Jacobs (partial comment): "I actually own and use the LX100 and love it as my carry around camera. It is pretty enthusiast-oriented. I'd only even consider recommending it to an older person since they'd use the viewfinder and the young won't."
Kirk in PDX (partial comment): "I just went through this exercise with my artist sister-in-law...once she learned that all the options [I suggested] were within rock-throwing distance of $1,000, her enthusiasm waned. And, none appeared simple to use. She said that she didn't want to 'get all into the settings.'"
BH (partial comment): "Fuji X30! I've got several friends/family using earlier versions of this camera, and they've always got it with them when I see them, which I take to be a good sign."
Bruce: "As a former (recently retired) salesperson at a large chain of retail stores in Australia, I can say that not many customers come in with the question you ask. They usually come in and ask, 'what's your price on the Canolynikony Fupen 1?' They've usually done their homework, and are simply after the best price. Full stop. We then have to convince them that we will match, if not exceed their best price, and tell them why we're the best people to buy from. After gaining their trust, they'll still want to shop around, proudly showing you their best price on their iPhones; a grey import, and expect you to match that, so then we have to tell them why they should not buy grey imports. And, yes, I may steer them towards the camera I get a commission on (maybe all of $5–10!!) because in the end, they'll still get a great camera...(there are no bad cameras these days) and I'll have spent maybe half an hour qualifying and talking to them. If I'm fortunate / skilful enough to sell them the camera, I'll leave them with an incentive to come back into the store to print their first photos, and hopefully have a client for a long time.
"What really does stick in my craw, however is when they've been to a large store which sells all electronic equipment with the question you ask originally, and are told 'go to [our shop] get their advice, come back and we'll beat their price by $25.' We live in interesting times.
"And, the best two sales people in our chain are both women. They are very good at what they do!"
Regarding your earlier article, I've quit giving recommendations. They see my photos online, or on my walls and ask what I use, or what I recommend. It might be what I have, it might be better or less-featured gear. I try to tailor it to their needs.
Invariably, they go with what the camera guy says not having seen their work and spending all of 10 minutes talking to them. Apparently there's more authority behind the counter. And more often than not, they spend far more than they needed to. IMHO many (not all) sellers are really just about making the buck, and "educating" only to assert their alleged authority.
I'm not bothered by it anymore, but all I tell people now is: go get what feels best in your and and is easiest to operate. They're all pretty much the same.
What I was reminded of was what I learned from my sporting goods days years ago is this: people want what they want, not always what they need.
Posted by: Jason | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 02:19 PM
Recommending a new camera to somebody that wants "a camera", without any concrete requirement, is the exact same thing as recommending a computer to somebody that needs "a computer" without any requirements.
If there are no requirements that usually means that the person asking is a neophyte, and would be well served by any of the multiple entry level offering. But here's the kick, everybody thinks they're special so you can't tell them "for your intended use ANY camera/computer in the market will suffice until you grow and identify specific needs for your tools" - that's not what they want to hear, that their use case is the most basic one. So now I resort to tell them that
1) it's 2015, technology has advanced so much and the competition is so fierce that short of spending $x0,000 in a medium format camera, the rest of the bunch is more or less on par, and
2) the most important part of the process is for them to _really_ like their camera, how it looks, how it handles, how it sounds, that there is a connection between him/her and the camera.
Next stop is a trip to a camera/computer store to do some physical handling and that's it.
People are usually happy with the recommendations that I've made, the main problem is not technical; it's people and ego management.
Posted by: Alberto Bengoa | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 02:22 PM
The single most important factor when picking a camera is size and weight. As tempting as that 5D-R might be in combination with the Zeiss Otus, you will continue taking more photos with your iPhone if you aren't committed to lugging around the "beast" all the time.
Posted by: Bernd Reinhardt | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 02:44 PM
Are we talking film camera or digital camera? (Just kidding.)
Posted by: Bill Wheeler | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 03:55 PM
Many of the best countermen I've known were older wedding photographers—people who began their career shooting film. Counterman was their day job.
BTW why would an "ordinary normal regular non-enthusiast" want to purchase a camera? Hasn't the iPhone replaced the camera for the great unwashed 8-)
Posted by: c.d.embrey | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 04:43 PM
A friend recently asked what DSLR he should buy and I pointed him at a Nikon D3300 two lens kit.
He pulled the trigger and is very pleased.
That's the first time I've been asked what camera to buy in about five years.
I suspect the next time it will be "which phone takes the best pictures?".
Posted by: mike plews | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 05:10 PM
I agree completely about the value of a knowledgeable local camera store clerk. Though for me now it's more for their expertise with printers. I've gotten excellent advice about correcting malfunctions, competent repair techs and new products from chatting with the lads behind the counters. In exchange, the store's gotten a large chunk of my income for ink and paper – what we used to call "consumables" back when people printed their digital photos.
Posted by: Jon Porter | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 07:14 PM
I thought you had resolved not to recommend cameras any more.
Posted by: Rodney Topor | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 07:24 PM
Olympus E-P5, if you can still find one ;-)
Posted by: Shadzee | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 07:30 PM
I have to say, starting your post with "I'd never have time to finish something like this..." and ending with "Have to go... I'll finish this afternoon" and then never coming back is pure genius.
[I'm back, but thank you...? --Mike]
Posted by: Matthew Miller | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 08:09 PM
Giving three choices sound ideal.
Posted by: Bill Wheeler | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 08:44 PM
"...if someone has a budget of $2,000, well, then they want an expensive, nice, new camera, and if you tell them a $750 camera will be just as good you won't actually be doing them any favors. "
In the digital era, this is the only reason the high end exists.
Posted by: Paul De Zan | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 09:10 PM
I very strongly recommend shopping only at camera shops that do not pay salespeople on commission. Even if a commissioned salesperson keeps within your budget, they may steer you to the deal with the best spiff, or -- even more likely -- get impatient with giving you lots of guidance rather than racking up a lot of sales in the same amount of time.
I've shopped for cameras and lenses quite a bit in both kinds of shops, and when you're in a shop that doesn't pay on commission, it's almost shocking. At my favorite shop (which I won't name just because I don't want to turn this into a plug) I'm almost embarrassed at how much of a salesperson's time I'll occupy.
Posted by: Joe Holmes | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 09:34 PM
Three: that's probably how many lenses you should pack for a shoot, even for an extended travel itinerary. I'm sure you can justify more, but then you run the risk of losing images through paralysis of choice.
Posted by: Don | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 10:18 PM
Here is Barry Schwartz's excellent 2005 TED talk on this subject:
http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice?language=en#t-235551
Posted by: Steve Rosenblum | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 10:38 PM
I buy everything I can at the local camera counter. My community doesn't have a dedicated camera shop. But one box store [no commissioned sales peeps] offers good service and matches prices. I like to support local economy. For this reason, I no longer use the latest/greatest versions of PS.
Posted by: Ed Brooks | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 10:46 PM
"... he argues that people prefer choice over no choice, but that too much choice leads to paralysis and dissatisfaction—and the optimal number of choices is three"
Depends on the circumstances. Probably works for cameras, cars, most tech gear, etc.
I'll have the exact numbers wrong, but the story is true: The merchandisers of a major supermarket operation were trying to maximize shelf space use and profits. The major line of hair coloring products had 12 shades, but three accounted for almost 90% of sales and four for almost 95%.
So they cut back to four colors. Sales crashed. The buyers had to see a full range of colors in order to determine which one they liked, perhaps through its relationship to the full range.
I believe much the same is true of a lot of fashion items. Here's a display at a Target, shot 'cause I thought it was an appealing image.
I'll bet those merchandisers too would like to cut back to the 3-4 colors that account for most sales. Can't be done.
Posted by: Moose | Monday, 13 July 2015 at 11:19 PM
The best solution is to recomend the camera he/she already wants. Usually the person has got a preselected camera and wants you to aprove the choose. So why argue?
Posted by: Salvador Moreno | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 06:11 AM
Consumerism encourages us to acquire expertise, style and status, rather than earn it.
We are encouraged to believe that we can exchange currency for any fantasy we want. We can buy a Porsche and become a racing driver, buy an Armani suit and become a businessman, or buy a D800 and become a professional photographer.
The easiest people to advise are the ones on a tight budget. They don't expect to be impressed by the IQ of a fire-sale end-of-line Panasonic, and are therefore delighted when they find out that it's actually pretty darned impressive.
Posted by: Steve Jacob | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 09:58 AM
Someone above wrote what's probably a common sentiment:
"BTW why would an "ordinary normal regular non-enthusiast" want to purchase a camera? Hasn't the iPhone replaced the camera for the great unwashed 8-)"
I know a lot of my friends have had smartphones for years - my wife has had an iPhone 5 for 2+ years (I only got my first smartphone earlier this year). I don't have a good sense of how long the majority of people (in the US, anyway) have been using a smart phone as their primary camera. But I'm seeing anecdotal evidence of "phone fatigue". People who gave up the "big camera" are finding that the phone just doesn't cut it all the time. Two of my friends have recently said they're planning to buy a camera soon. No idea if they'll actually go through with it. My daughter (age 12) loves her camera and vastly prefers it to her ipod touch, even if it means waiting a day or two for dad to download the pictures to her computer, and she has at least one friend who has a camera (and a tripod !) who is dabbling in photography and video as a small hobby.
Recommendations are tough ... the RX100 line (never mind RX10 !) is expensive; cheaper digicams suffer from a combination of small sensor and slow lens (the exceptions are the ones to look for) and anything with a big sensor is only reasonably affordable and compact when used with slow kit zooms that carry compromises that might not be ideal for a lot of people.
Posted by: Dennis | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 10:05 AM
I've recommended the LX100 to at least three different people looking for exactly what the Panasonic promises to provide. None of them have bought it, and I suspect it's due to a lack of budget on their part. They simply thought "I want/ need a camera better than my phone..." (which is how all three started) but never added "and this is how much money I will spend to get it." Would three choices have made a difference?
Posted by: MarkB | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 11:28 AM
I've had the LX100 for quite some time. I categorize it as generally "OK" as, say, a travel camera. But it doesn't qualify as a general recommendation, at least from me. It's too big to be a pocket carry-everywhere camera. When powered-up the lens protrusion makes it a much larger camera. (All the beauty photos of the LX100 you see, including the one above, are of the power-off state.) The image quality is OK but nothing extraordinary. The EVF is OK but the LCD does not tilt. And the comments about "being the closest thing to a Leica" are, well, perhaps not from Leica owners? For the size and price the Panasonic GX7 might be the better choice. It's a little bulkier and offers about the same M43-typical image quality. But it's much more versatile.
Rule #1 for recommending any camera: Never recommend anything you have not personally owned and used. You're asking for pie in the face.
(I now return to not recommending cameras.)
Posted by: Kenneth Tanaka | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 11:51 AM
Gotta wade into this discussion.
I have an LX100 (great camera) but I'm thinking a little too many controls (so a bit overwhelming) for a beginner. Although one can always set it to iA mode and experiment later.
I've always thought the Sony RX100/RX10 is a good recommendation. I personally didn't get on with the first RX100 but maybe that's just me.
Any ILC Fuji.
How about a Nikon D750 (or Canon equiv) at the top end.
At the very bottom end a phone is just fine.
This all comes back to budget though.
Cheers, Andy
Posted by: Andy Munro | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 11:57 AM
Almost bought the LX100 instead of the Olympus 12mm lens, a few weeks ago, still rethinking my decision, and am thinking I should have bought the LX100. It's pretty agreed on in my sub-set of pro photographers, that this thing is "it". I have people who own this thing telling me they could easily shoot jobs on it, as long as the needs fit inside the focal length range. We may be looking at the digital version of the one camera, one lens, Rolleiflex reality!
Since I moved back into image management, and doubt that I'd ever, ever, take another picture for money (and least market myself to do so), if I get my hands on one of these to test, I might find out it's great, and sell every digital thing I own and just use this.
I can see it now, Panasonic LX100, and 8X10 Deardorff, and that's it! Still wouldn't need to own an enlarger!
Posted by: Tom Kwas | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 12:01 PM
The first two questions should be:
- What kind of pictures do you want to take?
- Do you have a camera? If yes, what kind?
The answer to the first may require some follow up, but the best camera for landscapes may not be the same as for flower photography, or for taking pictures of sailing dinghy races from a race boat.
Note that I say "taking" not "making", as if they are at the making level they probably already have a good idea what they want and need.
Posted by: Richard Newman | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 12:05 PM
An old film dog, but I still get asked occasionally for camera buying advice. I now just say I haven't kept up on digital and wouldn't know how to help. But now, just in the last couple of years, a few folks have been asking about film cameras. Then giving recommendations is easy.
Posted by: john Robison | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 12:26 PM
I like the LX100 as an all around choice. I agree the knobs and buttons make it attractive to advanced users, but I think it could be accessible to new users as well.
I would try to talk someone down, zoomwise, from the Panasonic FZ200 to the (only 300mm) Olympus Stylus 1s, because the Olympus has a larger sensor. I have looked at quite a few images from the earlier Stylus !. They are about as good as I’ve seen from that sensor size.
I like the idea of three cameras to recommend. My third camera would smaller, something like be the Panasonic LF1, but that is out of production now. I’ve owned one of the Canon S series (S100), which is the standard for these small sized cameras, but I was not all that happy with it. I found myself working around it more than working with it.
For a small camera, I think I’d recommend the Fuji XF2, for the larger sensor and the film modes. Someone stepping up from an iPhone would likely enjoy both of those features.
Posted by: Bruce Mc | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 12:28 PM
When someone who isn't really a "photographer" asks for advice and just wants to get something a step up from their cell phone, I always recommend one of the cheap Canon point and shoots, like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-ELPH-160-Silver/dp/B00RKNMORM/ref=cm_wl_huc_item
There are a bunch of similar models. I can't really tell them apart, but they are cheap as dirt and Canon seems to have done the best job, in my view, of solving the "cheap little point and shoot" problem. Those who have followed my advice (yes, it does happen) have been happy.
I tried a friend's FZ200 on a week-long trip. He wanted to sell it because he wasn't happy with weird artifacts that were showing up in his photos. I had the same experience and returned it to him. It's hard to describe what was happening. One example is that there were things in the same plane of focus, but one would be sharp and the other weirdly unsharp. Not sure what was happening, but didn't want it going on in my photos.
I tried to find a "super zoom" to use as a travel camera, but gave up and went with a M4/3 system. I'm using a Panasonic G5 with the kit zoom and the 100-300. I'm very pleased with the results. I've been recommending M4/3 to most who ask and are moderately serious about photography. There are incredible deals out there for both Panasonic and Olympus cameras and lenses.
Posted by: Dave Levingston | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 12:30 PM
I actually own and use the LX100 and love it as my carry around camera. It is pretty enthusiast oriented. I'd only even consider recommending it to an older person since they'd use the viewfinder and the young won't. The EVF is great but no use paying for something you aren't going to use. I'd think it's pretty intimidating to someone who doesn't know what an f stop is, etc.
I've taken to, when asked to recommend a camera, ask them if they've got something in mind. They almost always do. I look it up and would tell them if there was something awful about it but I can't remember that happening in the past few year.
Posted by: steve jacobs | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 12:31 PM
Somehow, I'd completely forgotten about the LX100. But if a non-photographer acquaintance asked me for advice, I would not recommend it. Their first objection would be, "It doesn't zoom out far enough", and from that it would never recover.
Both Sony and Panasonic seem to have better than the run-of-the-mill all-in-one "superzooms" these days. In fact, if I were starting from scratch, I could make the case that the Sony RX-10 II is all I need (not that that would stop me from buying more).
When people have asked me for advice, I tell them to buy last year's model second-hand (any brand) and use it, figure out for themselves what more they need, if anything, and go from there. No one has listened to me yet. But it doesn't matter, unless they're photo geeks, the camera will sit in a drawer anyway. It would be interesting to do a census of all of the generations of cameras sitting in people's drawers at home that never get used.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 12:43 PM
The LX100 is a nice camera and a lot of people could be happy with it. It's $800 for a fixed lens camera, so if/when it breaks, the whole thing needs to be replaced/repaired. The zoom range is modest and a lot of average people like more magnification. It's compact. Should be easy to use and generate great results. I have to think someone should be able to put a 1" sensor in a more "mainstream" body for $500-600. The RX10 is probably on the big side for a lot of people, but I'd tend to recommend it over the LX100 thinking that the zoom range makes it more appealing to more people. But I don't think there is a single easy-to-recommend camera any more than there's a single easy-to-recommend car.
Posted by: Dennis | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 01:04 PM
I think the Panny LX100 is a reasonable choice, though you might have a bit of a time convincing someone in the States that they don't need a DSLR.
I don't think one recommendation would work; different customer needs are best served by different market offerings. I sold my Sony RX100 to a coworker earlier this year. I never bonded with the RX100 at all, but it's perfect for them and they absolutely love it. Sold my Fuji X-A1 to another friend who wanted to get in the Fuji X system, but had a modest budget and feature requirements (didn't need a viewfinder); he loves that camera as well (the X-A1 has always been under-rated, image quality surpasses my OM-D cameras). I presently have a friend who is an experienced photographer asking for a recommendation as to what's presently best in mirrorless, and I am going to recommend the Fuji X-T1.
Personally, if I had to have only one camera, it would be my Fuji X100T; this camera has proven to be much more versatile than I ever thought it would be when I bought it in January, but limiting oneself to one focal length might be too constraining for "normal, regular friends".
Posted by: Stephen Scharf | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 01:17 PM
One advice often overlooked: Don't buy the kit! Not referring to the kit lens, but to the "kit" - memory card, lens cleaning fluid, cloth, brush, tripod, filters, and whatever else the store is trying to get rid of. And extended warranty.
Posted by: toto | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 01:18 PM
Things change quickly, don't they? I'm way behind the loop, with a d7000 and a s95 (not even to mention film cameras!). Wow.
Posted by: Bill Wheeler | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 01:32 PM
I just went through this exercise with my artist sister-in-law. She indicated she wanted to get a 'real' camera that was smaller than her Rebel with lenses, but offered better images than her iPhone 5.
I recommended the RX100iii and LX100 if she wanted small, or the RX10 and FZ1000 if she wanted some tele reach. Once she learned that all the options were within rock-throwing distance of $1,000, her enthusiasm waned. And, none appeared simple to use. She said that she didn't want to "get all into the settings."
We settled on a new iPhone once her contract is up with Moment Lenses as the best compromise solution. http://momentlens.co/
Apple does simple well. Sure wish a camera manufacturer would too. And I'll have to agree with Thom Hogan, modern cameras have a workflow issue. Camera phones get pictures out of the device so effortlessly, it is tough for 'real' cameras to compete for anyone other than enthusiasts or pros.
Posted by: Kirk in PDX | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 01:42 PM
Had I known that the LX100 was coming out, I may never have bought the GX7. It has been on my wish list ever since, waiting for the price to drop. And what camera do I take with me almost all the time, my GX7 or my LX7? The LX wins it almost all the time, (and never my GH2). So, I sez t' meself, "Self ... why do you have all these lenses for cameras you don't use"
Posted by: Mike R | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 01:45 PM
Fuji X30!
I've got several friends/family using earlier versions of this camera, and they've always got it with them when I see them, which I take to be a good sign. Very similar camera to the Panasonic you posted. I think the sensor is a little smaller, but most people don't know or care about such a thing.
The only thing I ask people is if they're going to shoot sports and/or wildlife. If so I tell them to go the DSLR route. Otherwise I recommend something small with a relatively fast lens. (i.e. Mirrorless)
Pretty soon we'll just be able to tell them to stick with their phones.
Posted by: BH | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 02:06 PM
I like the LX100. I've recommended it to a few casual photographers when they've asked for recommendations – not a single taker so far.
They end up with other micro four-thirds cameras with interchangeable lenses (or small DSLRs) but end up never changing lenses, even if they buy a few primes in addition to good walkabout zooms. Understandable - it feels better knowing you could change lenses if you had to than knowing you're stuck with what you have.
Your point about not nudging the well-heeled towards cheaper cameras is a good one, too, and can be hard to grasp at first when you have relatively little money but rich customers. If I were better off, I'd definitely be buying items that felt special and used better materials, even if I knew I were paying a little over the odds for them.
Posted by: Bahi | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 02:27 PM
Mike. I recently bought the LX100 when my daughter was born (end of May). The ergonomics, operation, and field of view are a revelation.
Between the handling, IQ, and zoom range, I've actually been meaning to write you a message for a while to say that you should get one in to review and that it would make a great camera for most of your readers.
I've since sold my m43 kit (which in turn was the reason I sold my stellar Zuiko 12-60 and 50-200 kit).
Posted by: Vadim | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 02:42 PM
I can barely decide what camera I should buy next, never mind recommending to someone else what they should buy. The only thing that keeps me sane is being secure in the knowledge that the vast majority of cameras and lenses these days are much better than the people using them--and yes, that includes me too.
Posted by: Gordon Lewis | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 02:56 PM
My brother still happily uses the Canon S90 I recommended years ago. I've found it far more dangerous to give constructive feedback on a creative work like a short story than to recommend a camera. One is a purchase, the other is your friend's sense of self-worth. Recently I advised a friend on a laptop purchase for her son and gave her general advice, things like ram, ssd, and three brands to look at when at the store. She was happy with that. Still her choice, but she's a little more knowledgeable going in.
Posted by: John Krumm | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 03:57 PM
I own the LX100 and think it is a bit too much for someone just getting into things. For friends who tell me they are really getting into photography but they want something better than their smart phone I now recommend a used Sony Rx100 mk_. The Mark 2 sells used in good condition now for around $350. This is a good intro camera for them because it produces excellent images, has manual controls, shoots video (many casual shooters like that on vacations), has RAW file capability, and is small, light and pocketable. You can add an after market filter adapter from Lensmate to it, and a grip. With this camera they can learn the basics of real photography such as manipulation of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. If they master all of those things and need more then they can sell it for around what they paid for it and step up to a camera with separate lenses.
Posted by: Steve Rosenblum | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 04:13 PM
My issue with the LX100 and the like, is that it has nowhere near the maximum focal length that most people would want. A general purpose camera surely has to be able to catch the birds in the back yard or in the trees near the holiday lodge; the surfers at the beach; the cars, horses or motorbikes at the races. It's ubiquitous.
That's why the twin lens kit Canikonax (or budget mirrorless equivalent) is so generic as my go-to recommendation. Things like LX100, RX100 are far too specialised and restrictive.
Posted by: Arg | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 04:23 PM
Random comments:
Some people want a camera to take pictures, others want it because they want to own "stuff."
The oft-mentioned iPhone takes damned fine photos and simplifies the online sharing of same. (I have mostly followed the 1C1L1Y discipline in my travels and have not often been disappointed. There is a movie in theaters - Tangerine- shot with an iPhone.)
Free advice is worth what it costs.
The risks of making reccommendations to friends exceed the potential rewards.
This applies to cameras, cars, computere, smartphones, TVs, travel, potential mates, etc.
All generalizations, with the possible exception of this one, are false.
Posted by: Jim | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 04:49 PM
I really wasn't going to comment but...
Panasonic LX100 - $800
Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR with 18-55mm STM Lens - $500
Tiny, light, quick - love mine (it's a 100D in Europe). Even better with the 40mm pancake lens, and it's not a dead-end.
Posted by: Hugh | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 05:20 PM
I, too, cringe at the idea of spending $800 on a fixed-lens camera, but for those who don't, the obvious option vs the LX100 is the RX100 III -- a different approach to the same end, with different trade-offs.
A good third option at similar size and quality might be the Nikon 1 system, which starts at $400 for a zoom kit.
Posted by: robert e | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 05:25 PM
If they want it to fit in a pocket then the Canon PowerShot S110. If they want more zoom and don't need it to fit in a pocket then the Olympus Stylus 1s.
Small sensor cameras are good enough for most people. More portable, lower price, and simple controls are most important. The S110 and the Stylus are a step above the pack and would make the average user quite happy. They are both far better than a phone.
Posted by: Scott | Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 07:43 PM
For general purpose shooting, which is what most people buy cameras for, nothing beats an entry level DSLR and kit zoom, period.
Posted by: Paulo Bizarro | Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 04:17 AM
The camera that gave me a lot of images that still please me today was the Rollei 35: easy to carry, totally simple to use, capable of producing excellent images. So far I've seen nothing like it in digital and so I'll keep my S95 which is a decent little icon maker. Or maybe the X100T when the price drops somewhere under $1000.
Posted by: Jake | Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 08:09 AM
I wrote a comparison of cameras in early 2012 for my brother when he wanted to get a DSLR. I listed various cameras including, for comparison, my out of production Pentax K20D, and the even more out of production Minolta X700, which we both still have. It covered five pages, but I said in it:
"Firstly, a really good camera will not make you into a really good photographer, but a really good camera will work with you, not against you. The best camera is one that is as transparent as possible; it doesn’t get in the way when you take a photo.
When deciding on a camera, choose the one that feels best in the hand, that has it’s controls where you’d expect. That way, you can concentrate on the picture and you are more likely to take the camera out in the first place. You will learn more about photography.
All the cameras listed here have more than enough pixels" All had at least 12Mp.
My brother planned to do astrophotography, so I included a table of chrominance noise; he might have chosen another camera if he had different plans.
I did admit that I was biased in favour of the Pentax K5, but he still bought one. A couple of years later I sent the same, now out of date comparison to a friend, who bought a K5ii.
I also said:
"I have just found this quote: “It's really hard to buy a truly **bad** lens or body these days.” "
Posted by: Roger Bradbury | Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 09:44 AM
I forgot to say, both my brother and my friend are happy with their choice. Success!
Posted by: Roger Bradbury | Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 09:46 AM
The LX100 is so good that you wouldn't believe it. These two galleries are pano (from 7 to 30 shots for each picture, average 12) entirely taken with a LX at 70 f/4, raw, converted in LR6. Quality is amazing, post processing creates no issues and ease of use with a pano head in the field is unbeatable. I used the full electronic shutter for these, bracketing 7 exposure (it's so fast that sometimes you don't even realize that the bracketing has completed). Then I simply choose the best exposed frame (so no HDR here) and processed. Online you can't see the details but the lens is so sharp that you could easily print 4 meters or even longer.
http://www.camagna.it/stories/DDR
http://www.camagna.it/stories/Delta-del-Po
Posted by: Camagna | Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 10:38 AM
When I started in photography in highschool in the 1940s, my experience was mostly using a Speed Graphic. When I decided to get a smaller hand camera the choice was between a Rollei or a Super Ikonta B. I chose the Ikonta B and never regretted it.
Posted by: Herman | Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 11:52 AM
I've bought a few cameras this year that might have been good suggestions for someone wanting a setp up from a phone camera. In order I bought them:
Fuji XF-1. New Old Stock, bought for $125. Probably not worth the $500 original asking price, but quite a good P/S, with 2/3" sensor, shoots RAW.
Nikon 1 J1. Possibly refurb, maybe NOS, $135. Fast autofocus, ILC.
Ricoh GR1 w/ big flash, New, $575. Fixed 28e prime lens. I honestly wonder how it would compare shooting next to the Leica Q. I would wager the handling of the Ricoh might be as good or better, but IQ would probably give a bit to the Leica, and for the price premium it should. But whether the Leica's better quality would show in prints? This isn't Leica bashing, just pointing out an excellent alternative 28mm equiv. option.
So in short, get an un-loved older camera that excels at what you're lacking with the phone. Speed of focus, better post-processing, better low light/DR, whatever you need.
Patrick
Posted by: Patrick Perez | Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 02:37 PM
I've been selling cameras for 40 years now...started when A/F was unheard of and built in meters in SLRs were only on the upper end models.
Agree with a lot here...never put more than 3 items on the counter, otherwise you just confuse your customer with too much choice.
One thing earned me many long time loyal customers...don't sell them stuff!!
I often had first time buyers who had no idea what they really liked to photograph ask me what accessory lenses, filters, etc they should buy with their camera.
I'd tell them to purchase the basic camera and lens...and then take a basic photo course at the local community college and when they had decided what they liked to photograph to come back and purchase the applicable accessories.
I didn't sell as much on the initial sale...but I've had customers who've stuck with me for 20 years now because I didn't try and load them up with a bunch of needless gear on our first meeting.
Posted by: D | Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 04:31 PM
There are more candidates for the title Most Recommendable Camera. Not everyone has the same needs. The most important thing when you get started is that you should have fun, otherwise things won’t last. And you first need to learn the basics. The Fujifilm X30 is a better camera for that than the Panasonic LX100, but that doesn’t mean that the Fuji is a better camera. Some other high-end compacts or mirrorless system cameras are fine too.
I wouldn’t recommend one of those all-in-one-hybrid-ultrazooms to start with. Not even a budget DSLR. Keep it simple. Enjoying your life is most important, which means that for many of us the Most Recommendable Camera is no camera.
Posted by: Sietse Wolters | Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 03:15 AM
I agree with those who say check out exactly what they want, get them to define whether big zoom or ( often forgotten) wide angle is most useful. How important is an OVF /EVF ... ( for me critical not for others). If they are older then a flippy screen enables you to take low photos without bending down. I think a lot of photographers were very sniffy about these.
Then how important are looks. I have a Panasonic G6 which was almost free with a very useful 14-140 lens. It looks very uninspiring but it is easy to use one handed. Has a good touch screen that some people love etc. It may not look much but it is a VERY practical carry around walking camera. On the other hand the Olympus OMD5 is a thing of beauty ... it is waterproof but has a less malleable screen and has a series of menus that drive you to drink ....which is better is definitely a thing you can only find out by using them!!!-
I too have used the LX100. Was impressed but none of the people i have mentioned it to are prepared to pay that money for a fixed lens. Maybe the journey to ~DSLR and then back to the simplicity of an LX100 or a X100 is one that has to be taken step by step ... Less is more etc.
So guidance is mainly about listening. As a family doctor my old tutor told me 'listen .. they are telling you 90% of all you need to make a diagnosis' ... its much the same with cameras IMHO.
Posted by: Tom Bell | Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 10:29 AM
Dear Mike (and Ken),
My experience has been pretty different from yours. I don't get asked for camera recommendations too often, maybe a couple of times a year, but when I do the people follow my advice more often than I would have expected (which would've been somewhere near zero). None of them have ever approached me with the attitude that getting a camera that I recommend or like mine will let them make photographs as good as mine. (Discussions among peers are another matter–– then we're talking shop.) Rather, they admire the work I do and they know that I am particular about what I'm doing, so they trust my judgment to be particular for them.
First question, of course, is what their budget is-- their total budget. And there, I would disagree with you, Mike. If someone has $2000 to spend, and their objective is a camera with several additional lenses besides the kit lens, $750 is a very reasonable target for the camera itself. (In fact, I went through almost exactly this exercise with someone three weeks ago.)
Second question is what kind of photographs they are interested in making. That can lead to counterintuitive results. For example, if someone with a under-grand budget was interested in bird or wildlife photography, I WOULD recommend to them one of the better “bridge” or “superzoom” cameras, because otherwise getting the same kind of reach without spending many thousands of dollars is going to be hard. And those are GOOD cameras. They aren't as good as a nice interchangeable lens digital camera, but the Fuji S100fs that I owned and reviewed seven years (that is, three generations) ago had better image quality than most people would be able to extract from a 35mm film camera.
On the other hand, if they were into low light photography, I'd be trying to think of which systems have cheap, fast optics, which might or might not lead to an interchangeable lens camera, depending on the focal length range they really need.
And so on.
Third question is do they have a local camera store that they can go try cameras out at. Because these days, really, it's less about image quality and more about ergonomics for most photographers. They all make pretty damn good pictures. But some of them will sit well with you and some of them will drive you crazy, and it's gonna be different for everybody. If they don't have a good local camera store, I recommend they buy from B&H and make liberal use of its return policy if need be.
pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
======================================
Posted by: ctein | Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 04:17 PM
I find that the biggest barrier for most people to photography is that the camera is too big to be bothered with.
For people who want a better camera than their smartphone, I recommend an RX100 and the Sony accessory grip, usually the original model which is available used for under $300.
Posted by: Matthew C. | Friday, 17 July 2015 at 10:00 AM
I get asked the 'which camera' question all the time. Apart from recommending a Phase One I give them the answer that you really can't go wrong with any Canon or Nikon DSLR.
I do make a lot of assumptions by saying this but my assumptions are usually valid because:
1- The people asking me are not enthusiast photographers. If they were good at photography they wouldn't be asking this question. They would ask "do you think x would be better than y at doing z?"
2- People don't want compacts anymore, phones are the carry everywhere camera, most people who ask about camera are looking for something that will take higher quality images.
3- If I recommended something from left field (mirrorless) they wouldn't go for it anyway.
Posted by: Robert Vine | Saturday, 18 July 2015 at 07:32 AM