What Camera Would You Recommend For Me?

Do you want a DSLR or a bridge camera? Do you want separate camera lenses or all in one?

I don't know if I would prefer an DSLR or a bridge camera. (This discussion reveals my ignorance.) I would want the simpler one if there is a significant difference in simplicity. Along the same train of thought, I'd like an all-in-one. Basically, I'm just wanting a simple, inexpensive, digital camera that would be a step up from what I have now in that would produce quality pictures with sharper detail.

You might want to look for a "hybrid" --- This is like an SLR, which can give nice clarity without top prices, especially when you are new to photography. You can always upgrade to a heavy, complicated, multi-lens SLR when you get "good enough" and are consistent enough in your hobby to warrant the cost. I love my hybrid. They are made by most of the prime camera manufacturers. They are not pocket cameras, but can be small enough to fit in a very small camera bag with shoulder strap; they would even fit in a briefcase - almost. Not heavy - and no possibility of interchangeable lenses. This makes it possible to find out what all the stops & settings are about, before you lay out the big bucks. The hybrids go for $300-400 or so. They are versatile, to give you more possibilities for close-up, and in variable lighting situations. -- Good luck. --- Betsy

Budget?

i think the best thing you should do - is master the camera you have, and understand what the numbers all mean. you won't get sharper images from a new camera, you will from a lens and technique. as said, we don't know your budget, what you plan on shooting etc.

looking at your shots, i'd say your losing focus due to using a digital zoom. turn that off and get closer. shooting on auto - you will have the lowest, most open, usually the softest fstop. the fstop provides your depth of field and some focus. its like squinting your eyes. but a new camera is not magic, and you should master the one you have now.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Good point. I should take the time to learn the numbers and settings of my current pocket camera. At the same time, I would like to upgrade a tiny bit. I thought that a camera with a higher pixel count (resolution) would help a little bit, but I am speaking out of ignorance. By the way, I don't want to spend more than $1000. I'd consider a hybrid. I must give myself time to learn.

$1000 should easily get you a decent DSLR and two lens with some dollars left over. I know you said you wanted something simple, but, really, if you're going to take the time to learn about photography and the "numbers" (shutter, aperture, etc. etc.) you might as well learn with something good that will give you much better results than what you've been using so far. I like Canon. Many like Nikon and Pentrax has been catching my eye lately, too. With one of those brands, you can't go wrong. Meanwhile, you can keep the camera you have now as a back-up in a pinch.

I agree with Mike. And that doesn't mean you shouldn't get one within the next six months. Just go out and practice more with the one you have. The first thing I was told when learning to use a DSLR, was to "take your settings off auto"; and it was the best lesson I learned. From there, I just experimented with different depths of field which is what F-Stops are all about. Learn about light and practice shooting at different times of day at different angles.

What you don't want is to become a equipment hound. You can point the most expensive camera in the world at a boring subject and still end up with a boring photograph.

One way to go is get an entry level crop sensor DSLR and a trusty inexpensive prime lens like a 50 mm. Learn to see with that one lens. You'll get sharp images and a full range of apertures to learn. Tripods also help sharpness and slowing down to compose.

If you are worried about size the micro four thirds cameraa from Panasonic an Olympus are very portable and you save money on glass because they don't have to make them so big. I shot stock for years with a mid range mirrorless 4/3rd camera. You can get older models for less than a few hundred. Again, go for a prime lens - 50 or 35mm equivalent and work on seeing.

And get something with a viewfinder. Something you can look through with one eye.

Suggested course:

John Greengo covers everything you need to know to take better photos. You’ll learn how to choose the gear that’s best for you, and how to use it to its fullest potential. From shutter speeds to apertures to depth-of-field and much, much more, you’ll build an understanding of the core concepts every successful photographer needs to know

https://www.creativelive.com/courses/fundamentals-digital-photography-2014-john-greengo

I agree with Joseph, get the best DSLR you can afford. However, if you are in and out of hobbies than I would stick with what you have. I started with the best I could afford in 2007, Nikon D200 and it came easy to me. I must say that I still use a flip phone because the Iphone is to complicated, or maybe its because I could care less about a phone. I bought the camera for therapy, not because I thought I was going to get rich or to compete with others. I will continue to shoot the rest of my life whether I sell or not.

Having a decent DSLR will give you so much more options over P&S but will not solve all problems. When you are able to notice differences in lighting then things will start to click, pardon the pun. Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax all have great systems for under a $1,000.00.

I agree with Joseph, get the best DSLR you can afford. However, if you are in and out of hobbies than I would stick with what you have. I started with the best I could afford in 2007, Nikon D200 and it came easy to me. Just trial and error. I must say that I still use a flip phone because the Iphone is to complicated, or maybe its because I could care less about a phone. I bought the camera for therapy, not because I thought I was going to get rich or to compete with others. I will continue to shoot the rest of my life whether I sell or not.

Having a decent DSLR will give you so much more options over P&S but will not solve all problems. When you are able to notice differences in lighting then things will start to click, pardon the pun. Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax all have great systems for under a $1,000.00.

Looking at your pictures, you like to shoot birds.

That means you need a DSLR and decent tele lens. The best tele zoom in your price range is the Nikon 70-300mm 1:4,5-5,6G VR (I shoot Nikon, but I´m sure other brands have something similar). This lens will serve you many years, even if you make the step to full frame. Combine this with an entry level DSLR - or better - a preceding model of a newly released mid-range camera (like the D7100).

Beside this, EVERY photographer needs a $100 50mm 1.8!

I asked the same question a while back...here is that discussion...it is closed but there was a lot of really helpful information...http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=2345606 I think you can still read it even though it is closed.

" I don’t want a lot of “bells and whistles”. "

Unfortunately every camera these days is crammed with a bunch of stuff that sounds good when the salesman talks about it but in the end won't be used. For example all kinds of in camera processing.

"I don't want it to be expensive and cumbersome."

A big DSLR and honkin' bazooka lens won't do you any good if it ends up staying in the closet. So you really have to consider this.

"Easy to use"

All modern cameras come with automatic mode which functions no different than a point and shoot.

I still recommend the John Greengo workshop on CreativeLive. He has a great way of explaining every bit of a digital camera and photography concepts.

There are some really good books out there.

Matthew, I am rather new to photography also, but I'm taking off running with it, just self published 2 books of my work. The camera I just purchased less than a month ago or so is the canon sx 60 Hs, it's a bridge camera @about $500, it's best feature is the 1265 mm zoom lens, you will love with it does. For examples of photos visit my gallery, it's all I can recommend because it's all I know, but it works for me.

BTW, pretty nice images for just starting out

Sorry, but I really can´t recommend any bridge camera! Especially, if you can get a decent DSLR for almost the same price. There is a reason, why you can´t get a 1000+ zoom lens for "serious" cameras.

Edit: Sooner or later you´ll start pixel peeping (at least to a certain degree), and than you´ll regret not to go the DSLR route!

I was pretty amazed at this 1265 mm built in zoom lens Colin, technology is changing every day.

Matthew, point and shoot, both these images were taken with no consideration for Fstop, aperture, or any thing else,and no lens to change either, not that I'm not learning, but taking picture like this for me while I'm still learning is very rewarding.

@ Mario

Please don´t missunderstand me. Of course, no camera manufacturer sells crap, and the best camera has nothing to do with your photographic eye. But, as you said yourself, you have no comparison to what you have now. There is no way, that a camera with a build in 1000+ zoom delivers the same image quality than a 70-300 mm lens alone for the same price (or more).

I agree with Edward's advice 100%.

One way to go is get an entry level crop sensor DSLR and a trusty inexpensive prime lens like a 50 mm. Learn to see with that one lens. You'll get sharp images and a full range of apertures to learn. Tripods also help sharpness and slowing down to compose.

If you are worried about size the micro four thirds cameraa from Panasonic an Olympus are very portable and you save money on glass because they don't have to make them so big. I shot stock for years with a mid range mirrorless 4/3rd camera. You can get older models for less than a few hundred. Again, go for a prime lens - 50 or 35mm equivalent and work on seeing.

And get something with a viewfinder. Something you can look through with one eye.



To this I would like to add: the best camera is the one you have on you. I spent a couple of years lugging a camera+ zoom lens that combined weighed something like 1.4 kilos. It was not fun nor practical to lug around with me the whole day.

To start out, I would consider a fixed lens camera, either with a zoom or prime. The weight savings and compact form factor will likely make you want to take your camera out more, which means you will do more of what is even more important than your choice of camera: going out there and shooting. Once you start to advance your skills and have a better idea of what really matters to you in terms of photography/gear choice you can re-evaluate.

I am currently in the market for a compact camera, but if I were looking for something bigger I would seriously consider this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=fujifilm+x100t&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps

It's small and light, yields good results and, from what I have read so far, is a lot of fun to use. Autofocus will most likely be faster on traditional DSLRs though.

@ Dean

Did you had a look at Matthew´s portfolio? He likes to shoot birds. I recommend a 50 mm, too. But for his prefered subjects, he needs more than 50 mm.

I basically see a bit of everything in his portfolio with an emphasis on birds. For faster AF a dslr + zoom might be better. Not sure though that this would be the best option for a beginning photographer to fine-tune his craft.

The Fuji is quite expensive anyways so it's probably out. Not ideal for bird shooting, but a great tool to learn photography that will grow along with your skillset.

@Matthew: is there any specific area/subject that you would like your camera to excel in besides improved IQ compared to your current camera? That might help us offer more suitable recommendations.

I shoot birds, and though I am about to upgrade I like my Nikon d5300, the 7200 is a newer model with the same processor. For birds or wildlife in general a minimum of something with a 300mm long end. Sometimes you can find the starter dslr kits with a 2 lens deal that include a standard 18-55, then a 70-300mm. BTW bigger numbers by the mm means tele which brings your subject closer. tele lenses are also normally sharper when used with a tripod. Even though you wont notice it when shooting, even your finger pressing the shutter produces hand shake which is more noticeable the more you are zoomed in.

Alicia, a telephoto lens doesn't bring anything closer. What it does is take a limited angle of view (a tiny section of a scene) and make it larger. The 'closer' thing is a common misconception. Telephotos also tend to flatten the subjects, when compared to actually shooting them from close range.

The advantage of the DSLR is the flexibility of changing your lens for better lenses when you can afford it for sharpness, color interpretation (very important) and different levels of bokeh. You can't do that with most smaller cameras. You are stuck with what is on the camera or very limited choices.

Another difference with the DSLR and smaller cameras is they have a smaller sensor with less color data. You notice the difference the images in a smaller camera look flatter because there is less color shading, DSLR image looks more DHR with depth. A less quality lens doesn't do the best job at color interpretation with some colors turning out duller with grey tones. That is what my lens does but with a high quality sensor I can work with it in the editing although sometimes the color is disappointing but still better than the newish point and shoot I owned.

I am ready for a higher quality 50mm lens which I can buy and change out with what I have now. I don't have to buy another camera for better images. The sky is the limit as to higher quality and creative lenses, it is just a matter of $$.

Ahhh, I know exactly what you need...

http://www.instructables.com/id/How-To-Make-A-Pinhole-Camera/

I'm fairly new myself Matthew, with only a bit over 3 yrs under my belt as a serious photog. While I haven't read through all the posts, I'd ask you if you plan to shoot film at any point. Reason being, to slow myself down to really look for a shot and learn to walk away from bad shots, I took a 35mm film class at a university. My first DSLR was a Sony A-33 and now have an A-65. I have all old Minolta AF film A-mount lenses that I shoot with. Knowing Sony bought out Minolta, I purchased a Minolta Maxxum 35mm camera that I knew would accept the A-mount lenses I use on my A-65. I fell in love with film and now learning how to shoot with a Large Format camera, which indeed is very challenging. ;) I'm getting what I need to set up a darkroom and will one day prolly shoot more film than DSLR.

So if you plan on perhaps one day shooting film, look for a DSLR that will interchange lenses on a 35mm. Sony (Minolta), Canon and Nikon all have good 35mm and DSLR cameras. No matter what DSLR you buy, I highly suggest getting an extended warranty for it. It can more than pay for itself; I had my A-33 replaced for free. ;) Also some mom/pop camera shops rent out camera and lenses, so maybe research your top 3 choices, then rent them to decide which you want to buy. Also places like Borrowlenses.com rent out equipment and all I've gotten from them has been good. Absolutely love Zeiss 16mm-35mm f/2.8 for Architecture and that will be the only lens I'd pay over $100 for. Hope Santa thinks I've been good. lol. Yep all my lenses were under $100.

When I first started out, I read a lot online, bought DVDs, books, and watched vids. But of it all, I would say the best I came across was Lynda.com when I got a gift subscription from my kiddo. They offer a 7 day free trial to watch all you can during that time. One of the most enlightening workshops was Ben Long's on Photography and on Lightroom. There are many others too that made the cost of $25 per month worth it, when I needed to learn something (like HTML/CSS coding) or refresh myself. No contract; start and stop whenever you want; which I do throughout the year.

~ Charly

My 2 cents, Why not move up to either the Sony rx100m3 or 4, They have the Carl Zeiss lens,,the camera is small and has ,the auto modes which produces fabulous results.they also have all of the pro camera features which you can grow into .. Then you can decide if you like photography enough to move on. A basic dslr will be probably obsolete in a couple of years the way technology is moving now anyway, You may want to evaluate the mirrorless cameras also, they are smaller , lighter and produce great results too The sony a 6000 is one. These cameras have interchangeable lens and most of the pro features too, These cameras can be as simple or complicated as you want them to be, They have the same auto modes that the point and shoot cameras have but they do it so much better, The good things is that as you become more skilled you can go into manual settings as your skills become more developed,
http://www.cnet.com/products/sony-cyber-shot-rx100-iv/

http://www.cnet.com/products/sony-alpha-6000/

Wow! Thanks for all of your contributions, perspectives, recommendations, and opinions. I didn't expect nearly this much of a response. All of you gave me a lot to learn and consider. I like this we site and I'll be throwing more stuff (pictures and messages and such) up here from time to time. Thanks again.

If you ask me, looking at the gallery of Matthew, one would say that needs all focal most commonly used; from wide-angle to 300mm.
Matthew shoot the birds but is not a true photographic safari to use 600mm. Anyway, if you are using a system aps-c's become a 450mm approximately. In any case I would opt for an DSLR regardless of the size of the sensor, even if my own a fullframe is better. Obviously it all depends on what a person wants to invest at home but Canon and Nikon are the two fullframe at a relatively affordable price.
Besides, if Matthew going to go on and on with photography, I would avoid the first choice to take a less powerful camera and then switch to a camera with more quality .... is money down the drain if we consider that the change would do (with all probability) after one year.
It would be even with the beautiful photographs but not of great quality. Then nobody discusses such that a Canon M or G or Fuji or whoever generates the file but a good reflex is better.
As written, it should be considered also the flexibility that offers an SLR. In more than a reflex current tough quietly 5/7 years restoring a file that can easily compete even against new technologies.
The fixed focal are my favorite. But two zoom covering all focal go very well. Alternatively you can opt for the fixed focal type 24 to 50 and then zoom 70-300 (although I would add a 85mm fixed - this is to avoid keeping always mounted 300mm zoom bulkier).
In the digital age are very useful targets with stabilizer, however, to turn off the tripod.

DSLR segment unprofessional you can not buy with the two zoom to a figure of around $ 1,000, or maybe a little more. and always generates a great file. Alternatively you can buy a higher-end DSLR and lens used .... there are great bargains.

Scott Kelby Digital Phtography 1 and 2 are the books I was thinking of and had to go look at the name.

I started with a camera like yours and upgraded to a Canon 5D original with a 50mm lens. At least half my portfolio is shot with that pairing. I would still be shooting with the original 5D but wanted higher ISO for star shots.

Can't beat the price now. http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20735033.html

And sharp?

Matthew,

I found my self with a similar thought process to what you describe, I had been studying photography and practicing with a point and shoot camera. I didn't want to over complicate things but I wanted a better camera with a bit more options for control. I bought a pretty pricey Canon point and shoot, and an adapter that let me attach ND filters to it. I enjoyed the results I was getting so much, that within a years time I decided to go for a dslr. In retrospect, I wished I had just gone for the dslr and put the extra money I spent on the point and shoot into slr gear.

Youtube is a great source for learning about photography and different techniques. It's also loaded with tutorials geared toward specific gear or software.

Alicia, a telephoto lens doesn't bring anything closer. What it does is take a limited angle of view (a tiny section of a scene) and make it larger. The 'closer' thing is a common misconception. Telephotos also tend to flatten the subjects, when compared to actually shooting them from close range.- Murray Bloom

Murray I'm certain you know what you are talking about here, but the concept totally Flies over my head! I took this picture with my 1265 mm zoom lens, these flies certainly look way closer then with my naked eye. Not only that the photograph is a 2d image, is it not? how does a 2d subject become flatter than it already is?

I agree with Mario! I think that Canon would be a great choice. If later you decide you want to upgrade then you can go to a DSLR. I have a DSLR but also shoot with Canon G10.

Decisions decisions. I like to photograph whatever "catches my eye". It seems to be birds for the most part but I don't limit myself. So far I'm leaning to the Canon PowerShot SX50 HS 12.1 MP Compact Digital Camera. It has that 50mm zoom feature and an adequate number of pixels. It does have some "bells and whistles". It looks easy enough for me to use (though I probably won't learn all of its features quickly). It is a step up for me but it is within my budget. I'm still thinking.

Nice, Mario! Can you tell me how you took this? What settings?

Thanks Jessica, I took this with my canon sx 60 hs in auto mode with the telescopic lens at it's max 1265mm, and no tripod.

Matthew, we should not worry about the difficulties of using a tool, are all easy ... once you've learned :)

Seriously, they are really easy to use. I would like to know who uses all available functions. When you've learned the basics with those you do everything. Certainly if such photographers a moving subject is best to set the camera to prioritize the focus rather than at the click of shots ... I do some more with the burst ... but not all machines have this function , and we must be content only focus constantly.

Especially if you generate RAW files all other functions that normally are set for a jpeg (just to destroy a little image :-)) do not even use. And 'much better to work the images with Photoshop software, or other software, rather than using the camera software which is less powerful.

Matthew that camera has great reviews, and is very similar to the sx 60 hs which has the wide zoom lens, I am really loving it! I like shooting birds and macro, but I can also shoot sunsets and the moon and landscape. I picked up mine on sale for under $300.00 at walmart, it was on clearance. Best purchase I ever made. I'm not ready for the expense of a dslr and all the additional lens I would need to do what this camera does, a slight trade off in image quality, but good enough for what I need it for and super easy to use, and it will teach me for when I want to spend the big bucks, I guess that's why they call it a bridge camera, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it!

I don't think a DSLR you buy today will be obsolete in a few years. I bought my Pentax K20 used two and half years ago and it's five and half years old. The sensor on the smaller cameras is still smaller and not as high quality. Lenses, the same thing, high quality lenses are not on those cameras except for the Zeus lens. You can have some sharpness but the color is not as good. You pay for what you get and that goes for lenses and sensors. I've looked at Mario's images, the smaller sensor is not the same it gives a flatter look.

I've used a Point and shoot for lots of my work. I license my work with publishers. No problems with quality, no complaints.Can do lots with Photoshop!

I have on older Fuji S3 which I have had for years, so I am looking to upgrade too. A photographer close to where I live has been doing photography for years, and he loves his Nikon 7000. This camera body can be found on eBay for around 500 or 600 dollars, and Fuji lenses will interchange. I am in the same boat. I need a new camera, and don't have a lot of extra money, but that is what I think I will get next unless I get some feedback that it is not a good camera. Leaning about your camera is important, because using all of the different features will get you different shots in many different lighting scenarios. I have just started photographing other things than my children, so I am open to new ideas too. Have a great day!

Try either the Nikon D5300 or the D7100. Both deliver the images without a lot of technical clutter and options you usually don't need. Most retailers are offering a package that includes a pair of zoom lenses, one of them a pretty good telephoto zoom.

I prefer Nikon because it is sturdier than any other camera, so it will endure a lot of abuse in the field.

Chuck, Is there much difference in the D7000 vs. the D7100? I know the D7000 is cheaper, because it is a little older.

One last tip from me:

Whatever camera you buy, stop reading reviews about your camera! There will always be comments, which make you doubting, if you´ve made the right decission. Instead, go out and shoot the hell out of the camera and the lenses you have!

Although I still recommend a DSLR, take whatever system you feel comfortable with. And although you normally get what you pay for, no camera manufacturer can allow themself to deliver crap!

Colin Utz
http://colinutzphotography.com

I just saw a Facebook post from a fellow railroad photog who was approached by a PR firm concerning a shot he took of an Amtrak train. It's a lovely shot from Railpictures.com of an Amtrak train with a wheat field in the foreground and mountains in the background and they were going to pay him a nice little fee for usage which he said he was very happy with. So he sent them the high resolution file.

This is where his story turns sad. It was shot from a non-DSLR camera. He didn't say which kind, but they decided they could not use it due to poor image issues at the quality it came out of the camera for. So there was no deal made. He said he's going out to upgrade to a DSLR ASAP.

Remember. You do get what you pay for.

That sucks Joseph... Definitely a reason to start off with a high quality camera.

I started shooting with my cell phone, then a superzoom. I would kill to go back to Vegas, The Grand Canyon, Sedona, Miami, Key West etc etc etc with my current cameras.

As an aside you don't necessarily need a DSLR to get high quality noise-free photos. You just need any camera that has a high quality sensor and lens. There are plenty of non-DSLR options like the Sony RX100 series. But, most likely, you will pay a high price for it.

Ok my last tip wasn´t my last.

If you ever consider to offer pictures to stock agencies: Some agencies have a black list (or positiv list) of cameras they accept or not! Here is the recommended camera list from Alamy: http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/recommended-digital-cameras.asp

... and here Alamy´s unsuitable camera list: http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/unsuitable-cameras.asp

Here is the point, is the story of Joseph, the monitor is all nice but on paper is a different matter ... the paper sings!

Certainly not always the story, but why deprive yourself of that quality in the most? Maybe for $ 100/200. I do not say to bet on up with crazy prices. But there are good SLR systems with high quality and affordable prices. If you want you can start with only one goal, and gradually buy what you need. Many authors in the last century used one or two goals.

Christal, there is not much difference between the two, except for a new feature or two. You'll get a better deal on the outgoing 7000 as the 7100 replaces it.

The reason Nikon holds up so well is that it is made up of more metal parts, whereas many other camera brands contain a lot of plastic parts.

Mario, you're confusing what you perceive with what actually happens, optically. Telephoto lenses, by their nature, visually compress space. You may have noticed that different planes (distances from the camera) may appear all bunched up with a long lens. Now, imagine what happens to a spherical subject when it becomes compressed. It becomes an oval, with the front-to-back dimension experiencing compression. In theory, this may be hard to imagine, but let's use your Flies image as an example. The flies do appear to be rounded and have volume, but if the same image were shot with a normal focal length macro or wide-angle lens, the flies would appear even more rounded, having more depth and volume. That assumes that they would have let you get close enough to shoot them with a wider lens; which is, incidentally, why people shoot with long lenses. The point of view would also be more realistic, as you'd actually see the scene from the close-up perspective that a telephoto lens can only suggest.

Telephoto compression actually flattens an image, the extent depending on the focal length of the lens and distance from the subject. Telephoto compression is the polar opposite of what people call wide-angle distortion, where rather than being compressed, the scene appears stretched toward the horizon. It's how landscape photographers get such prominant foregrounds.

Thanks Murray, that was very informative, it's still hard to for me to totally comprehend. One more question, what is the result of an optical zoom with wide angle and with an added option to further zoom in more by digital zoom with the same lens, keeping in mind what you just explained?

Hey Mario...

Here's an example...

Two shots from around the same place, one with a telephoto and the other with a 'normal' lens.





See the huge difference on how close everything looks together?

The stronger you zoom in the more compressed the scene is going to get.

Toby - Ah. So that is what a telephoto does. I see the difference. You can get a close-up and squeeze everything toether in a telephoto. Unfortunately, it just leads me to more questions:

Does a telephoto system have auto-focus? I guess that it depends on the camera.
Can you explan (in very simple and practical terms that a 12-year-old would readily grasp) the difference between "telephoto" and "zoom"?

Perhaps I should simply buy a "Digital photography for Dummies" book and experimet with my next "step up" camera. Thanks for all of your help.

Well, technically in the above photo I'm guessing the person stood far back and zoomed in with a long lens to get the lion statues in approximately the same place I did in my photo... What that does is pull the faraway stuff closer relative to the foreground stuff.

Yes, telephoto lenses can have autofocus just like any other lens. I think telephoto vs zoom has to do with how long the lens is. A wide angle lens can be a zoom lens (say 10-24mm) but it doesn't have a lot of reach. Telephotos are generally lenses with a long reach, such as a 70-300mm.

Toby, my camera has a built in wide angle zoom lens of 1265 mm.

Sorry when I said wide angle, I was more referring to a lens that is a dedicated wide angle lens. I'm not sure what the lens on the SX60 would be referred to. Maybe a super zoom?

Colin, so I see on that list of acceptable cameras Almay includes some point and shoot cameras.

I read about f-stop and I am actually understanding and catching on. As I understand it:

If you want as much as possible (foreground and background) in focus, then use a high F-stop number. The benefit is that much of the whole image will be sharp and clear. The down-side will be that many things caught in the picture will compete for attention. If you want the focus to be on one particular item or at one particular distance from you, the use a low F-stop number.

If I am correct in my explanation, then there are two areas which are unclear to me (pun unintended):

To catch a moving target, shouldn't I use a high F-stop? I guess that if I have a "non-automatic" camera and want to take a picture of a bird in flight, then I better use a high f-stop to avoid having it fly away from my field of focus.

How does an auto-focusing camera know what I want to be in focus? I suppose that simple automatic point-and-shoot pocket cameras use a high F-stop or use an automatic "best guess" as to what F-stop the photographer wants.

OK, low fstop for a fast mover to freeze motion. The lower the number, the wider the whole, the faster the shutter speed.

You tell it what to focus on by picking the focus spot. OR, leave it on auto and it guesses like a point and shoot.

Many modern cameras can sense the motion and account for the moving target.

Keep in mind DoF also depends on lens length and distance from lens. Something focused at X distance even at f2.8 will have a deep depth of field approaching infinity. X depends on the focal length. With a 24mm lens I think X is 30 something feet. I will see if I can find that info for a 300mm.

Here go, plug in the camera type vs the lens length and fstop, and you get your DoF.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html