I have always had a point and shoot camera well apart from doing photography at school many many years ago, anyway I just love photography and want to up my interests a little and get myself if you liek the next stage camera. I have 3 children so cant go mad just yet on the cost. Pictures I would like to be able to take are not only of my children and there sports but also wildlife, scenes, beach sunsets etc. I like the type of shots that focus on one image and behind is almost a blur. I have looked at bridge cameras and dslr and I just dont know what to go for make model etc help please.

I have the old model of the Canon 350D. Its been ugraded to the 400D but I think you can still get them second hand. I love this camera. Its an entry level camera but is fit for any purpose. I'm a poor student in a photogrpahy course and can't afford to upgrade but this camera can keep up with the rest of them....its the way ya use it I guess!

This will give you the blur in the background on auto. Once you figure it out and learn more about it you can think of upgrading lenses etc.

I've had no problems with it and I have it three years now.

Any entry level DSLR will achieve what you want with the right lens. In alphabetical order the best choice is between Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Sony. Generally speaking the cheapest set of camera plus two basic lenses will come from Olympus, and the most expensive from Nikon.

You have to go to a store which carries three of those brands, two as an absolute minimum, to find the camera that suits your hands, that has the most key features you would like to use, that has a controls layout and a logic in the manual that suit your way of thinking. When you've done that, come back and tell us how far you got, and someone will advise you for the rest.

Do not listen to gushes of enthusiastic advice from anyone who has only ever used one brand of camera, (like me, but I don't gush), or from a person who has just got their hands on their first enthusiasts' camera and is still spell-bound by the difference between their preceding camera and their current one.

Do not let a salesperson sell you a camera on your first visit. Most stores have very good business reasons to be biased in favour of some brands and against others. High definition camcorder mode is available on more and more DSLRs near entry level, but that may or may not suit you: battery power melts like ice in an oven; you can't have one person filming and another snapping simultaneously if both functions are only available on the one unit... If anything discourages you about DSLRs you can fall back on super-zoom bridge units, but not all is as rosey as it seems with them either: shutter-lag, image quality at the extremes of the zoom, weight...

Whatever advice you may be given only you will "feel" what is right for you. Maybe you want to ignore all my encouragements of prudence; that is also a decision which is exclusively personal to you.

Finally: in all circumstances have fun buying and using your camera. "No phun, no fotograffy!"

From your description of the varied types of pictures you want to take you want a DSLR. There is good advice from X, I'll add a little to it. The advantage of DSLR is that you can get different lenses for the different scenes - e.g. the "kit" lens, often 18-55mm, will be fine for the beach, children and general shots. A "fast" 50mm prime at f1.8 for those single image with a blurred background a telephoto for the wildlife. These are the pictures I take with a Canon 400D, kit lens, 50mm canon f1.8 platicky prime and a Tamron 70-300 zoom. All the lenses cost under £100 so we are not talking mega money.
I suggest you go for Canon or Nikon if you are on a budget, with a Sony as third choice if you don't like the feel of either. These will give you the greatest choice of good quality third party lens. To use Tamron or Sigma on an Olympus you'll need a converter - which costs, is bulky, has to be attached, etc.
It will be your camera and it has to feel right when you hold it. If possible go to a camera club or see a friend and try out their camera, see if it suits you. You don't want a camera you hate.
All entry level cameras have the fully auto setting to get you started but you will soon be trying the more advanced setting for specialist shots.
When looking at all the complex techie detail, remember that a camera, whether digital or film, just captures light onto another type of media (film electronics, etc.). So the more the light the better the picture. Megapixels don't matter (after you go above 4MP).
Don't forget to cost in extras like memory cards (always buy at least two - they are electronic devices and go wrong, you don't want to lose all your pictures). More extras, like tripods, monopods, external flash, can go on your Christmas and Birthday present wish lists.
Lastly, don't agonise too much. All the time you spend deciding is time when you haven't got the camera and are not taking picutres!

Erm. Half of my lenses for my Olympus e-620 are Sigma, with no converter, and they work beautifully.

But I'll forgive you because you hit the button full on with your comment on megapixels, although I would have been a little more enthusiastic if I had been commenting on wishes expressed by a more advanced questioner.

You are equally correct in advising against unnecessary thinking time when buying. Say on Saturday you have a good look at, and feel of cameras that could suit you, and come straight back to check out what you are likely to do straight away. In that scenario you should have bought your watch on Monday/Tuesday. Spending hundreds of $$$ merits a little reflection, but not inactivity.

Finally, a little bit of disagreement rears its ugly head again: Why do you recommend Canon and Nikon when the entry level models have no Live View, and when Nikon lenses are very expensive, relatively speaking? I stand by my list of Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Sony for comparing 3 of the 4, with, at the moment, Olympus and Sony making the biggest push for sales by offering very keen prices.

"It ain't personal; it's just business...)

One could add that Sony, Olympus and Pentax all have in - body anti shake. I believe that Canon and Nikon do not (not the entry level ones anyway), fine cameras though they are. Ed will correct me if I'm wrong.
I like anti - shake since I take quite a lot of natural light photos indoors.

Hi

I have a Nikon D40 with the std lense, I'm looking to buy an additional lense(s), i mainly shoot landscape, people etc. usual stuff for general photography.Can anyone advise on the lense(s) Is should buy to improve my pictures?

Thansk Chris

Point and shoot compact cameras are great for average photography, can be handled easy in one hand if the need arises and some of the modern ones have all sorts of "trick" modes to deal with beach or snow photography etc.
However, if you like the shots where a person is bold in the image whilst the background is blured out of focus, you just can't beat an SLR.
The tiny sensors in a compact camera mean that your background behind your subject will be anywhere from vaguely blurry to crystal clear at best. They have what is called a "high depth of field (DOF).
SLR cameras will enable you to blur the background much more easily as their sensors are larger and hence have a lower DOF when used with a lower aperature lens.
When it comes to digital SLR cameras there are roughly 2 categories... full frame sensors and cropped sensors.
A full frame sensor means the actual camera sensor (the replacement for the film) is the same size as the surface of the film that's exposed in a standard 35mm SLR film camera (those little negatives you get). These cameras will help you to achieve an even lower DOF than the "cropped sensor" SLR cameras, but also come with a bigger price tag (usually >£800)
The majority of cameras below £1000 are "cropped sensor" which means the sensor is about 2/3rds the size of a full frame sensor. Whilst the DOF on these cameras will always be slightly higher, it's still much much better than you'll get on your Compact Camera, and considering your budget I'd suggest you go for a camera with the cropped sensor (Canon 400D, 450D, 500D Sony A100 etc).

This low DOF field look that you want also depends on your lens and the lowest "aperature" it can achieve. The lower the number, the more you'll blur out your background. So for instance if you set your lens to "F11 or F16" you'll have both your foreground subject and your background in focus. If you set it to something lower like "F4 or F5.6" your background will much more blurred (assuming there is several feet between foreground subject and the background). The reason i'm leading you down this dicussion line is to basically say if you can afford later on to buy a lens with a low aperature, like an F2 lens, then your "blurred" effect will be more dramatic when you use it at F2. However in the short term, with a limited budget, a reasonable lens like 18-70mm F4 - F6.3 will be pretty good and achieve the looks it sounds like you desire. A lot of Canon cameras come with an 18-55 F3.5 lens, which is pretty good, but if you get one that goes from 18-70 (or higher) then that'll be even better.

I speak from some experience, as I had your same dilema 2 years ago, having used a film SLR for years, then moving to digital compact ... "should I upgrade to a new digital compact, or go for an SLR" .... I chose a compact, the Canon G7 ... only to partially regret it later because I couldn't get that "blurred background effect" and then bought the Canon 400D SLR and I'm really pleased with it. Both cameras have their useful places in my life (the SLR is big and heavy but gets good results, however the compact one is more pocketable for when I'm going for a night out and want to keep my camera safe in a pocket), but I achieve much better results with my SLR generally.

I can't comment on other brands as I've always favoured Canon, but don't forget that Nikon and Canon tend to be the 50/50 split amongst the general press photographers. But to get a good price on a Canon try going onto eBay and looking for the "Canon Outlet" refurbishment centre. You can get cameras cheaper and still with a years manufacturer warranty as they've been refurbished.

The size of the sensor in a FourThirds body has no incidence on the decisions on depth of field. What I have to remember when I am composing a shot, maybe even earlier when I decide on the lens to take out of the bag, is that my 24mm lens, for example, will give me the perspectives and depth of field of a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera, but only half the field of view. Therefore there will be an apparent zoom, which in the case of FourThirds bodies is 2:1.

People have really screwed up the perception and use of depth of field on FourThirds cameras by saying that a 24mm nominal FourThirds lens behaves like a 48mm nominal lens on a 35mm. It doesn't, because it can't! Whatever I do with that lens apart from stripping it down and grinding away on the glass, its focal length will remain at 24mm. If people fit a 24mm lens on a FourThirds body and expect to get the depth of field effects of a 48mm camera they are going to be very disappointed. As the set of lenses for my Olympus e-620 has grown I find myself pretty much covering the same focal lengths as I did with my OM-2n or OM-2Sp bodies, and at each focal length, from 11 to 200mm, I expect to find the same capacities for using depth of field effects as I did at the same focal lengths with my film kit. I haven't gone above 200mm; even prime lenses above that are a bit more than I can hold safely these days.

The real problem for DSLR owners like you who want to manage the light they use to its utmost artistic effect is the massive ISO numbers, that keep aperture at values where almost all hope of working with the depth of field disappears. I work at lower ISO numbers. Working like that can be a lot more difficult, but, as you say, the principal object in the shot can be made to ping out against the background. Maybe the only good thing that can be said about paparazzi is that they show the right example, using their flash-guns rather than their ISO settings as soon as the light on their victims is poor. "ISO down" = "aperture up" = good, and if there's still not enough light, make some, but not too much... Paperazzi get paid to make the subject hit people's attention, not to have him/her/them melt into a uniformly noisy background.

I would never advise anyone to buy a zoom with apertures from f/4 to f/6.3. Tsk, tsk! Not a lot of leeway to focus in average light, OVF or not, and the depth of field will be in millimeters!

Unless a person wants to become a real professional, and not just a dreamer with a bag full of expensive kit, there is no problem in choosing a DSLR body that has a sensor smaller than full frame, none at all. And Canon and Nikon do not have starter bundles that "beat" starter bundles from Olympus, (which I know for a fact), or Sony, (which I have heard repeatedly from reliable people). A DSLR starter should look at Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Sony, and make up their own minds about the features and their relevance to what they want to do, with questions here or to any other reasonable source of information about any details, before they wave their plastic, not afterwards.

[Deleted by the author on 17 Nov 2009 18:43 GMT]

It is possible to get a so called point and shoot camera, where you can do special effects - the Canon Powershot range for example have manual modes (Or at least the one I had did), but as already said, unless cost is involved, in which case you probably can manage with a non slr, then slr is the way to go.

Just as a point of interest, the other week I was chatting to a guy who deals in cameras, and he showed me some A3 blown up shots of the town hall clock. One was on a Fuji point and shoot (Not surprisingly it looked awful), the other two were on a Lumix TZ6 at £180 ish, and on a Canon SLR worth £3000. There was surprisingly little difference between the latter. When you looked hard, things like the shadow detail were better on the SLR, but to the layman like me, I'd have saved my money and gone on holiday hehe.
Course, the SLR isn't all about small quality differences, it's the flexibility etc.

Hi Mrs W! My advice will be a bit biased, as i'm a Canon fan. I have to say, their entry-level cameras are really good; I would recommend a 450D, but for not a huge amount more in cost, I would stump up the extra and go for the 500D - it even shoots full 1080p & 720p HD video! Also has 15.5 megapixels - which is really phenomenal. I actually own a Canon 40D (which is a semi-pro camera), but i've just bought the 500D as a back-up - but its that good, it might actually become my main camera! As for those shots you like where the image is in focus but background is a blur, do you mean a fast-motion shot like a car at speed? To get that effect, best thing to do is set a fast shutter speed and (example): follow / track the 'car' (imagine you are filming it for example) and take the picture BUT still keep tracking / following the cars movement after you've taken the picture. Hope that helps!

If money is an important part of the decision and your aim is to produce quality photography of friends, family and places you go, I know you will be happy with an Olympus lens+ 2 lens bundle, and, as far as I have heard, a Sony bundle could be comparable. There is usually a financial disadvantage to Canon or Nikon, both with the initial bundle and with any eventual extras. The technical differences between Olympus/Sony on the one hand and Canon/Nikon on the other are of no importance to someone looking at doing "friends and family" photography.