Beginner camera for taking photos of the stars

[backofmylungs]

Hopefully this is okay to post, since I have zero knowledge of cameras, but..
My boyfriend has wanted a nice camera for a long time, and used to tell me that he wanted to be a photographer and take pictures of the stars and moon when he was younger. He still tries to take pictures of the moon through his phone sometimes and I'm sure you can guess that doesn't really go well lol. He also likes to take pictures of bugs, flowers, etc nature stuff.

Soo I want to get him a camera to get into photography but I don't know how to pick one out. I'm looking to spend ~$700 and I can buy a lens separate. While I don't know much about cameras I did read a bit and found out a tripod is needed for photos of stars, so I can get that too. I just don't know what camera would be best for the price.

Thanks in advance!

[Shadowman]

If it's not going to be a surprise take the boyfriend to the camera store and see what suits his needs. Better yet, quiz him on what knowledge he has with cameras, in the end he'll be the one using the device.

[skilsaw]

Cameras are surprisingly personal in the same way a musical instrument is. You wouldn't buy an instrument for a musician without them playing it first.
I bought a camera for my daughter in law for her last birthday. She had asked for a camera and wanted me to pick one out.
I chose the Canon G1X which is an excellent little camera but it is too big to carry in a pocket. In hind sight, I think she would have chosen a pocket sized camera for herself. The technical characteristics I chose the G1X for are unimportant to Robyn, and the camera size, which I didn't consider is important to her.

Make shopping for a camera something you do together and don't try to buy all the accessories in one trip to the store. It is a process that can go on for a long period and give the photographer a lot of enjoyment.

[lukaswerth]

Allowing your friend to check out the camera is probably not a bad idea, but it spoils any surprise, and if he otherwise uses his phone to take pictures, I doubt that he can tell differences between models in handling or otherwise.
Having said this, I must hasten to state that I also have no general comparative knowledge about contemporary camera models. However, if you are still looking for a camera for star photography, you should watch out for a camera which gives you a good high ISO performance: in a starry night, you need 3200 ISO - 6400 ISO wouldn't hurt - which you want to expose for about 20 seconds with as wise a wide-angle as possible; on APS-C 12mm would be good, and you need at least f2.8; again, f2 would enhance your possibilities.
So, watch out for a camera with not too much noise as these high ISOs, and for a lens which is wide enough, and opens up enough.
The moon is different; to expose for the moon itself you need the same exposure as in midday sun; the problem is the rest of the frame.

I hope this helps,
Lukas

[AB26]

Don't spend money on a boyfriend!

A Canon SX50 would suit your budget and he can learn with it. Not a camera for a professional but at least he will be able to get better shots than those on a phone. It should take him a long way towards his dream.

[FrankMi]

I would agree with Andre on the Canon SX50. I have one I use as a travel camera when I don't want to lug the DSLR and multiple lenses. I've taken a good many shots with it including hand-held moon images with it's excellent Telephoto capability and built-in Image Stability.

HOWEVER! - He might be happier with a camera he can pocket for ease of use and the SX50 is not pocket-able.

[ajohnw]

Your asking for a camera that covers the lot really. Moon - long focus lenses, Bugs macro lenses and normally for stars a good quality camera.

The stars are particularly difficult. The usual way is very high sensitivity settings and lenses and exposure time that do not show too much star movement. If you look on the web you will find sites that mention techniques and the equipment needed. They will usually mention extremely expensive cameras in order to get to the performance levels that are likely to be needed. One of the problems is the need for a really dark site to take shots from easily. Many urban areas have far too high light levels at night. There are ways round this that involves taking several shots of the same thing and software.

One camera manufacturer has attempted to do something about this but I have no knowledge of their cameras at all. Pentax. They make a small GPS unit that fits onto their recent cameras. It seems to be priced around £200 in the UK so may be the same in $ elsewhere. You may be able to get that and a camera within your budget but I suspect 1000 would be better. The GPS unit can be used to make the camera track the stars allowing longer exposures and some what lower camera sensitivity settings.

The GPS unit is called a O-GPS1. There is plenty of info about it and example of shots on the web. One summary is probably accurate. It will never compete with heavy expensive astrophotography drives but for what it is it's pretty good and can just be taken out and used. There are some indications that it's more capable when the camera is pointed in certain directions. When looking at results it's best to remember that the spectacular ones will have been taken by people who are skilled at using the software that is used by most people on shots like these. That in itself will take some time to learn.

The same camera with a suitable lens can also take good shots of the moon and bugs. Both types of lens aren't cheap.

I may be out on my prices as I assumed these cameras were always sold with a lens. Seems that the prices I saw were without but it may still be worth looking. I was thinking in terms of a K5 II. There are others but you would need to check that the GPS unit will work with them. Remember though I have no idea how good Pentax cameras are.

There is another type of camera that can be well within budget. They are called bridge cameras and have a fixed lens. The ones above have inter changeable lenses. This should produce reasonable shots of the moon but unlikely to be as good as the above with the right lens. I suspect it would be best to forget the stars. They can also be used to take photo's of bugs. More easily than the above actually as camera shake is less of a problem and another factor which is rather technical. Only problem is that these cameras often do have a macro mode but it can involve putting the lens within 20mm of the subject which is no good at all. It will block the light for instance or scare the creature away. The alternative is photographing larger areas and cutting the part with the bug in out using software. The biggest problem really is that it's generally not possible to find out what these cameras can do in macro mode before it has been bought.. I've looked about at times on the web and usually find moans rather than praise.

John
-

[jcuknz]

I think this is a disaster of a site for somebody who knows nothing about cameras trying to buy for somebody who likewise knows little ... the problem is we generally know too much, have photographers standards, and think non-photographers want to pocket their cameras. I would agree that Andre's suggestion of a long zoom bridge camera is very good step up from a cellphone with the only accessory needed is a moderate close-up lens, say a two dioptre, to enable the bugs to be shot from ' not so close' but using the zoom for tight framing That is how I was working not so long ago.
I suggest that just the basic camera and CU lens be bought innitially and further accessories bought when found to be needed as subsequent pressies ... even a tripod is not really neccessary these days so long as one appreciates the need for firm support when using longer exposures and the average tripod doesn't provide this anyway until you spend your whole budget on just the tripod