In high school, I was a yearbook photographer in my junior year. They had a 35mm Canon AE-1 that did all right... We did not have a darkroom so the local drug store processed the film. Over the years, I have always had a camera, but often would pile up 18 rolls of film over a couple years' time before I'd get it developed.
My first foray into digital cameras was a used Fuji Finepix that a neighbor gifted to me after her husband passed away and I helped keep her yard cut and stuff till she settled the estate. This was around 2004. It was a 2 megapixel, with few 'quality' settings. I very quickly outgrew it because it was limiting - but it really opened my eyes to the possibilities of digital.
I do have one shot taken with it that I still really like.
Without resizing software, you'd be hard pressed to get much beyond an 8x10 with this photo because it would just get too pixelated. I actually took the photo after buying a new camera and running down the battery. I left the battery on the charger and we left to go somewhere, and I had one of those 'whoa!' moments, where I turned and went back. This camera was what I had so I used it.
The replacement camera was an Olympus camera with a 10x zoom - just a small point and zoom. At the time, 10x optical zoom was really something - nowadays it's nothing. This camera was 4.1 MP, and I took many thousands of photos with it. I got down on the ground and took pics of the forest floor (lichens are cool!!!). I took pictures of moving water. One night I took 60 pictures (no lie) of a black sky as a thunderstorm marched up the valley to the back of my house. Disgusted, I went inside and quit. Except I started playing with settings and figured out I could do a '15 second' exposure in one of the more advanced modes. So I went out on the front porch, where the storm was at by now, and the third shot, I got this.
So this camera had strengths and weaknesses. It was compact, and easy to use. It took great outdoor shots. The battery could deliver hundreds of shots before needing to be recharged. It could do macros as close as 1CM. It sucked in low light. Despite being only 4.1MP, I could do photo prints up to 12x18.
After having had this one for awhile, I 'upgraded' to a Sony point-and-shoot, with something like maybe a 16x or 20x zoom - can't remember now. It was 8MP. How I hated that camera!!!!! This was before Sony bought out Minolta and started marketing SLR's... The camera had a great zoom. But it had absolutely no quality settings. No RAW or TIFF mode, no super-fine jpg or anything. It just took pictures. And on a perfect day, they were okay. I'd have been hard pressed to do prints much larger than an 8x10 despite having twice the megapixels of the Olympus.
I started thinking about SLR cameras... I needed to do something. I was up to about 2008, and the older camera was barely functional (it took a beating including a day when I slipped on the ice and the camera went one direction and me another). The Sony sucked. I decided to ebay a used film Canon. After a month, I was hooked... So I bought a Canon XSI (12.2MP), entry-level but decent camera. Actually I ordered 2 because it went on sale a couple days later. I had a 21 day return window, and about day 20 contacted Dell to get a return authorization on the original camera, and turns out the clock started the day I submitted the order, not the day I received it, so despite delays, they would NOT let me ship either camera back. So I've had 2 identical cameras for years. I later bought another Olympus, and have used it now and again... But I have not upgraded a camera in 10 years+, although I bought Robin a Panasonic in 2013 for Christmas (more on that in a bit).
I am way past due for something new. The question is, what?
Impressions from the past experiences.
SLR cameras.
Canon and Nikon are hard to beat. They both have overall great reputations, are dependable, and everyone uses them. I had a friend who was into Canon so I figured why not. I'd probably do Nikon if I were starting over, but really either is okay. Pentax is interesting. They have been around a long time. You get more bang for your buck. The cameras are sturdier with more weather sealing, but the image quality overall is a bit lower. It's all relative.
The Canon SLR cannot be beat for image quality overall, and for reliability although both cameras have lately started to act up. I am well past their rated cycles on shutter life, because I was a glutton on camera usage for a long time. I have the basic 18-55mm type lens, and a Sigma 70-300mm lens, a Canon 50mm F1.8 lens, and a Tamron F2.8 90mm lens.
If I bring all the lenses along, I have to use my huge bag. And none of them are spectacular, although all have strengths. The one I'd replace if I keep the canon line is the 70-300mm - Canon makes better and they are cheaper/lighter now. The Tamron takes wonderful macros but you have to be a foot or two away from the subject.
This camera model did 'live view' which was new in SLR cameras at the time but is a standard now - and had been for a long time in point and shoots. It doesn't have a movable screen (articulating screen) so you either used the viewfinder or stared at the back. I'd probably rather not have one that doesn't have a flip out screen anymore. It didn't do video, which is another standard feature now.
So yeah... Unless someone gives me a bunch of Nikon lenses, sooner or later I'll get a newer model Canon SLR. Maybe even something like this with the extra lens: https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-rebel-t7i-video-creator-kit
Other Cameras.
If I had $1000 to throw away today I'd hold off on an SLR, and buy this:
It's not an every day camera. It's bulkier by far than my SLR. But on a tripod, I could take clear pictures of the craters on the moon and fuzzy pictures of Saturn's rings.
I think the technology will get better and cheaper and in a few years this might be a low-end camera by then. So I don't know that I can justify $1000 on the thing. But boy, I want me some of those moon shots.
Back to more realistic options.
Robin's Panasonic. It was on a Black Friday sale for $349 as I recall. It was the Lumix FZ300. I bought it for one reason. It could do low light and well. The zoom for its entire range (something like 24x) could do F2.8 (which means it lets a lot of light in, so does low light well). It does a pretty good job of outdoor photography. Maybe the prints aren't as perfect as a good Canon SLR, but it can certainly do action and low light and people and places and do a good job of them all. At the time, I was thinking 'School Concerts' because all my cameras were very hit or miss as to whether you could actually get focused on a kid's face or not. She has since continued to use it for product photography shots (see wheeloflightstudio.com for her solidarity cups).
The current model is the FZ300 and it's been out a few years. Still has that low light capability that made the original camera such a great option. It's only 12.1 MP; and for this price point should be upgraded. https://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/lumix-point-and-shoot-cameras/DMC-FZ300K.html
But all-in-all, a great option for anyone as long as you don't want to do poster-sized prints.
My criteria at the moment is... maybe....
Something 20mp or more simply because less seems archaic these days.
Probably a point-and-shoot and not an SLR simply because I get frustrated with the switching attachments all the time.
Something that can do macro shots at 1CM from the lens (I really like getting close the the flower/bug/whatever).
Something that can zoom quite a ways.
Something with an articulating screen so I can see myself if the camera is on a tripod, or so that I don't have to lay on my belly to get that four leaf clover in focus.
This all points me to a category of camera sometimes referred to as a 'bridge' camera (now they're changing that a little and calling them long-zoom cameras). A good up-to-date round up of cameras in this class is here (browse around a bit - a great resource for camera hunters).
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-enthusiast-long-zoom-cameras
There are a number of other buying guides here as well as reviews that show sample photos and comparable models.
There are large-sensor models and small sensor models. There are smaller versions of SLR that aren't SLR at all but similarly work with lenses (referred sometimes as simply ILC cameras - interchangeable lenses).
