neversink said:
Your kid wants an SLR??? Buy a used Exacta ... and the three classic Ansel Adams books

In my first job; I used an Exacta

It certainly bring back memories, but not happy ones, it was the the most unreliable camera, I have ever had the misfortune to work with

But I like the idea of giving kids a book; rather than the classic Camera, Negative, Print. I would recommend Ansel Adams autobiography

I feel a new thread coming on

Jost a bit of nostalgia regarding age and video... In 1965 while I was wondering around New York City searching for a job, I was honored to be able to spend an hour or two with Francesco Scavullo. He was all excited about shooting video and was as I remember getting a new camera. He was saying the video (film at that time) was the future and he was very excited about all this.

So, the excitement about video in the kids is nothing new. Scavullo later sent me to Los Angeles for a job with a friend of his...this was my time in NYC when I missed a job as an assistant to Hiro by about two days.. oh well...

Your kid wants an SLR??? Buy a used Exacta vxiia and a used 50mm Zeiss lens that came with it. Add some filters including polarizing, and a some step up lenses and close up filters for macro. OK, maybe I am in nostalgia land, but I would buy a used Nikon F, F2 or F3 on ebay and a Nikkor AIS 50mm f1.4 (a challenging lens as a first lens due to the DOF at 1.4.) Add some film - b&w -- and the three classic Ansel Adams books Camera, Negative, Print - and there you go. Don't forget a hand-held light meter. Send the kid into the world and then explain what middle grey and the zone system is all about after the first negatives are developed.

Warning - Most kids today have no interest in film. However, such a present often changes their mind when they see the challenges of film.

A good topic, filled with various points of view. I would like to add a few from my POV. First, I have raced against Porsche 911s. I have in the past beat them every time. There are 911s out there that can go very fast. Sterling Moss used to be able to drive a Volkswagen about as fast as many amateurs can drive a 911 on a race track. If you are going to drive very fast on a race track though you'd better have a fast car. The adage in racing is "Speed costs, how fast do you want to go?" Another reality is that if your are going to be a pro race driver you must start fairly young or you never are going to race say Formula 1 with other pros. I have driven Porsche 931s which are way faster than a 911. A Porsche 962 would be a very difficult car to race against without a very tricked out high performance and mega-expensive ride. That is why there are classes in every major race like 24 Hour LeMans. I have raced GT class. I never knew a SINGLE older person who really made it in racing. Ferrari is only one brand of race car, but a very good one. To date me Chevrolet Chaparral was a very effective Can Am car. Ford (the Ford GT) had a very good one. Carrol Shelby (the Cobra) had another, etc..

On to CAMERAS. I knew Ansel Adams and he would have been a good photographer with a D800 Nikon. But with 8x10 things are quite different. I never had the pleasure of knowing the famous William Henry Jackson, initially from the William Brady group of photographers on the Civil War team. The US Post Office had a very nice series on these influential photographers and the commemorative jacket for the series featured WH Jackson in Yosemite on the Balancing Rock overlooking the main valley from up by Lookout Point.

I know teenagers who have been given Nikon D800s. One is very well known by my son and grandson's who are also really into photography. My son is making a personal trip to B&H just to see the place for his first time today. I asked him to look at the D800 and see what he thought. We use D7000 a lot and a lot of DX Nikons and owned a D700 which I sold but always wonder about that as I actually rarely sell my cameras just seem to keep them as milestones but when I was with large and medium formats I decided to Sell them ALL after becoming convinced that 35mm was far superior in field work. Digital is far better for us to work with here than film ever was.

What does AGE have to do with it?? Almost everything it seems to me. Younger people seem to thing video is the standard. Feature movies are very influential in our lives. Problem start when you try to match a movie much up the ladder from home movies. Editing, storage, gear, etc. becomes a very large investment. But there are young people who think of photos as pretty much stills first and foremost. Field photography becomes really a challenge for the old. I knew a large format pro who had young people carry his 8x10 gear but in awhile his 8x10 work became roadside shots as he couldn't get someone to carry him up to the high peaks. I had photo ops as a young man I will never have today, partly just based on age. But another aspect of age is that if you are say from 70 or older you only have so many years to continue active work.

What does age have to do with DX versus FX DSLRs? Less for sure. Excepting the all important Cost of Entry. I think FX is for wealthier people as a gross generalization. But Nikon D4s are very CHEAP compared to quite a few other pursuits. One of the things NIKON had better damn well be considering is age of entry into this work or hobby. If you look at an industry and it is entirely populated by older craftsmen then it is likely on the way out. I had a very large exposure to economics on a national and international scale and if you look at an industry I think you'd better begin looking at what age are the participants pretty quickly. DX Nikons very likely are the better entry point for many today.

To look at Nikon's latest offerings (except the D5200) you'd never know this. I know no less than 50 younger people who got their FIRST DSLR camera this Thanksgiving (and they think of it as a Christmas purchase too). NOT ONE got a FX Nikon. Most of them got a D7000 and many where still considering a D90 which i admire but I think the D7000 is more up to date. Almost everyone also wanted a good a video on board as possible. I conclude from this DX is a more affordable format and right now a better entry route.
If you don't think the route someone enters better format cameras (usually now from iPhones) to DSLRs then you and I would disagree there.

Again there are some really excellent points of view in this thread and GOOD Luck to You ALL.

DaveyJ

@ TaoTeJared Re: Spammers... not back, but just very persistent....

birdman said:
. I do believe someone starting out (teenager, housewife)needs a less advanced camera (than D600 & D800).Then, it will be easier to upgrade when the need arises.

But upgrading from Dx to Fx is not easy
it means new a camera and a complete new set of lenses

My advice , if you/ they are going to need Fx in the future you/ they are better of staring with Fx

This is why Nikon brought out the D600

Yes it might be possible to upgrade to mythical D400 but I personally, don't think this camera is on Nikon's wish list?

Do house wives still exist

Spamers back!!!

birdman said:
Sorry TTJ, was not directing any animosity your way

No animosity felt - no worries.

Replying to another thread, I kept trying to think of how to create a "beginners" question thread that would come up in searches to push all of the questions there. Then I realized beginners don't know what question to ask. What a beginner's "nuances" they believe they have, are really not nuances at all and can easily be answered with the same responses.

Let me add to my comment. I do believe someone starting out (teenager, housewife)needs a less advanced camera (than D600 & D800). Then, it will be easier to upgrade when the need arises. Sorry TTJ, was not directing any animosity your way

I agree with TaoTeJared in many aspects tho. I and a small handful of other kids earned the cameras we own. In fact I constantly outgrew gear. However we were in the minority. Tha vast amount of teens (and dslr owners in general) are uneducated beginners...

I am totally with you on that one MsMoto. I think zoom lenses are a killer too. A dslr and a 50mm or 35mm prime is what most student need. I have been preaching that one for years too :D

The funny thing is that when you get the skill sometimes a 50mm is all you need. I remember one day going out with a full bag (17-35mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.8, 80-200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/2.8, 10.5mm fisheye and a 50mm). I ended up wasting energy carrying all of that because all I used was the 50mm. Didn't even touch any of the other lenses...

As of late I have been shooting with my speed graphlex often...

Not sure I see a problem. I shot Instamatics mostly, until I turned 16 and bought my first SLR. It was a Canon AE-1, nearly top of the line at the time and probably more camera than I needed when I first bought it. If I recall it was an FX camera (I'm joking here folks) and I was still able to use it for everything.

I think the issue is more a matter of "giving a teenager" anything of actual value rather than them earning it themselves. I knew two kids in High School that were given fast cars by their parents. One had never done a thing to earn it, the other had worked in his parents deli for "free" since he was about twelve. The one who had not earned the car totaled it within a couple months, the other drove his for years and took care of it.

So, is an FX DSLR unrealistic for a teenager? Not at all. Is giving a teenager anything of value they haven't earned in one way or another pretty pointless? Yes.

Nah... No problem giving a teenager an FX camera.

The real question is "Why give an FX camera to anyone else - why not to me?"

(I am not a teenager).

@ TaoTeJared I think you have described the reality well.... And, this is one of the reasons I think photo students should in the beginning be given a camera and one prime lens.....shoot the dickens out of it and find out what all it can do. Today, IMO, the zoom lens does not allow the opportunity of limitation to be present and individuals become to early seduced into being in one spot as opposed to moving about and finding out what the camera does.....

Oh well....

msmoto said:

I think you have a lot to be grateful for neversink.

Thank you msmoto..... We just spread Dad's ashes in a park garden above the Hudson River where he used to love to walk everyday. The limbs of an old American Elm hang over this spot. The elm is one of a handful of surviving American Elms in the park. Yes, Dad was a good man and taught me a lot. I miss him everyday. But I love looking at that old Exacta in the old display case.

I'm thinking my analogies are not translating across region/language/culture - analogies are not meant to be taken literally. I also see them "slam" into some individuals inherent thought process that resides with a default opinion of "let them get what they want."

Their Age doesn't matter - that is part of the analogy, just learning and then jumping into something that is remotely not needed. Envy has nothing to do with it either. Training wheels, starts in the direction, but is misplaced by the thought "because I did, they must."

From experience I have seen on this forum and in my life literally 100's of beginners who are convinced that the only way to get good photos you have to have the best DSLR and lens they can afford. The issue comes when beginners do not understand what "best" means. Some think it is the highest priced lens, some think it is the most reach (zoom range), some think it is the fastest focus (most don't understand that is not what "fast glass" means), some think it is having only f/2.8 glass. Almost all of them don't understand that they are the weak link, not the equipment.

We (with the experience we have compiled over years) know that 99% of beginners do not understand is their pocket camera with a 28-420mm lens has more reach than a DSLR with one 24-70mm lens. That may seem funny to read, but maybe 1 out of 20 beginners and friends I have experienced do not understand this simple idea that we take for granted, and are then disappointed. It is such an elementary idea but if you have been around or have taught children, it really is not a stretch at all.

The other "beginner" comments that halt me, is the "I have finely saved up and can get..." or similar posts that blow all of that on a camera and one lens. That illustrates to me money is somewhat of a struggle (as it is with most of us) and experience tells me they would enjoy the hobby more if they can afford the "extras" or more lenses that all of us amass over the years.

As for giving a beginner a hot-rod of a camera - this is why I think it is inherently stupid. The learning curve with most intense hobbyist that I have been around and have talked to is 2-5 years before they get enough experience to become able to consistently make great images. That is 1 - 2 camera upgrade cycles in today's DSLR existence. In the "film" days, you may have been only at a halfway point to a body upgrade. I do not believe having the "Best" camera speeds anything up. Experience doesn't come though osmosis of a camera to a person, but from hours, months, years of taking crappy photos and learning from them. :)

sevencrossing said:
If you made 2 cuts, it produced a neat slither of film, that could get stuck in the focul plane shutter

Hmmmm - Glad I never used that knife inside the Exacta to cut the film. I still have that old camera sitting in my case. Love looking at it. Gives me great memories....

I started young and was working in a studio by age 14. I had a 2.8D Rolli with all the extras by then. By age 16 I had an F, age 18 Nikkormat FTN, age 19 an F2. If a son/daughter/grandkids got a passion for something I'd try to help them out. What I don't like is seeing them with little vision of what they can accomplish.

framer

Just because someone is a teenager doesnt mean that they are still learning in the conventional sense. While all photographers are learning most viev a teen as one who needs a full education up to college... I started at 12 taking classes at the local college and by the time I got to 16 I was more technically proficient and awarded than many of my instructors. Of course in those days it had just gone digital so I stuck with film longer. I do see where the initial point comes from but then again digital is what caused this trend of non photographers to buying dslr's

Photography is a technical skill, so, theoretically, the more time you spend with it, the better photographer you will become.

I think starting young (younger than teenager) is great, provided the person is genuinely interested in it.

Giving them a crap camera is kind of like someone giving you or I a crap camera. One day soon our photographic skill will surpass the device's abilities. The image might be too noisy, or the dynamic range insufficient, etc.

If the person is not really interested in it, buying expensive gear is a waste.

Many people are far richer than I though, so perhaps it's not such a big deal to them financially, but waste is still waste.

Call me foolish, but to me the underlying message is envy. People who cannot afford the D800/D600, or who COULD NOT AFFORD THOSE AT 18, feel another person is not deserving. Kind of like the Ferrari analogy. The difference is this is a $3k camera, and not an exotic car. Who cares what the next man shoots with?

It's just equipment, and if the camera rarely gets utilized to its potential is inconsequential. That being said, reading literature and educating themselves on operating these machines make the most sense. Have fun shooting with YOUR CAMERA!

+1 rifqi...my boss was just asking about cameras. He has an old D40 with kit lenses. No way would I suggest anything over a D5XXX level camera. It is a waste for most that just shoot auto and don't know much. It is too much camera also and expensive equipment can be intimidating. Who wants to carry around a huge D800 if they really need a D3200? I don't think everyone really just needs the most expensive camera. Not to mention a D3200 on auto is probably going to produce better images for the novice then would a D800...especially if the person has no desire to understand or learn and just wants pics.

I think for my argument is you can learn on any dSLR body. From there you can upgrade and whatever. No camera is going to last forever and technology is always changing. Too many people want a lifetime investment from a body....well isn't happening. Lenses are as discussed to death a better "investment", but you also don't need to best to learn on either. It is a process to learn...no matter what age. Are young people responsible enough to carry around thousands of dollars worth of equipment? That is the real question...and I think what was being suggested in the comment from the OP. Plus when you are learning...will you learn more if you have a $3000 camera or a $300 camera...doubt it. I have learned much from my D5000 which is pretty cheap now. I think it would make an excellent camera for anyone young and old to begin with. Not much investment and I think still takes great shots. Once you get frustrated with its limitations then you have learned what you need and what might progress you as a photographer.

Geoff_K, I have to disagree. "Too much camera for you" can be a rather valid argument. However, not in terms of how difficult it is to use. Instead you should ask yourself if you really need all the features. Take the example of a D3200 vs a D7000. In most cicumstances these cameras will produce pretty much the same images. What you get when you buy a D7000 (or its replacement when it arrives) is a more rugged build, more external controls and more features. For a lot of people those are all things they will never use and that will have zero impact on their pictures.

If someone asks me for a recommendation for a new camera, I will ask what they intend to use it for. If the intended use is holiday snaps and nothing else, I definitely won't recommend a D4, I might not even recommend a DSLR, maybe something like the Nikon 1 is better.

I think a lot of people over-buy in this regard because they're lured in by marketing and gear envy.

Now, if you have a youth who's passionate about photography and you have the financial means, get him/her the best gear you can get that suits the needs. Learning any camera system is more than doable if the passion is there. It's all about knowing what you need, not what you want.

I think the D90, D7000, and soon to be D7200 is enough camera for anyone to learn on. You can make all the adjustments you really need to get started. Spending more money that that at the start is "overkill" regardless of age. And a mid-range zoom is all the lens anyone needs to learn on. When a person's ability really "outgrows" the capabilities of that level of equipment, they can move on spending more money on things they actually will use. Starting out with a D4 or D800 and "pro" glass is foolish IMHO.

But it is your money, spend it however you want. Personally, I want a German sports car (have a 12 year old 911), a Japanese sports car (have a 21 year old Mazda Miata and a 6 year old Lexus SC430), a British sports car (looking for a BRG 2003 Jaguar XK8 coupe) and an Italian sports car (the Alpha Romeo which will be built on the next generation Mazda Miata platform). Why? Because they each have different personalities and are each enjoyable to drive in their own way. So can it be with photography equipment. You can have it for enjoyment; not for need.

It's the people that want everyone to have training wheels on their bike because they did, or they just dont like that a kid has a "better" camera than they do.

"Too much camera for you" is such a lame response to someone. As long as it has an auto mode, it is not too much for them to start with.

neversink said:
. It even had a knife embedded so you could cut the film and save the unexposed amount if you wanted. I never used the knife, but loved the feature.

If you made 2 cuts, it produced a neat slither of film, that could get stuck in the focul plane shutter

I did purchased the Minolta and Nikons by working at a job....in the early 1960's $180 per month, up to $490/ month by the later 1960's and finally in 1969 up to about $800 per month...

I think you have a lot to be grateful for neversink.