As a photographer I am often asked what I would recommend for a new photographer. Then a rather narrow budget is provided. So, with $500 what would you get?

*note to climbers: technically when you upload a pic to facebook you are giving facebook the license to the image... so officially I discourage the practice. But, that said, if you happen to post something on the facebook give me some link love in the captions. Arigato!*

It's a challenge. I remember when I first bought a DSLR and it seemed like a HUGE cost. I suppose it is a bit bizarre to spend enough to get a decent computer for something that just takes still images. What's worse, even $1000 only gets you in the door. It turns out lenses cost far more than cameras. But everyone starts to realize... oh if I just had that lens.

I was very lucky. I discovered very early on in my photo life that the limitation wasn't the camera. I sucked. My uncle bill lent me his Hasselblad - the world beater - the king of cameras - the people who made the ruler by which all else was measured (or so it felt at the time). With this magnificent camera I managed to get the same crappy photos I had taken with much lesser cameras. Where was the color? Where was that POP?! It was a very insightful event. I couldn't get more fired up.

So, why did the 5x5" prints just look kinda blah. Well, it turns out I lacked many things. I lacked the knowledge to judge the quality of photographs, I lacked the skill to make better ones, and I thought that better equipment would equate to better pictures.

Sure, I had a leg up. I studied visual design. I studied visual narrative. I remember the days before photoshop (sort of... I think Photoshop 2 was my first foray). But, it didn't mean I could find a decent photo in Venice.

Photography is 90% equipment + enthusiasm if you read the marketing collateral. Of course this is crap. It's 75% equipment + enthusiam and 25% a beautiful girl to photograph right?

The simple reality is that most people can take better photographs than they are right now - with no more training. They need only take 4 more seconds before they shoot their next photo and look at everything besides the central subject of the photo. I bet that you will take a much more interesting photo if you give equal weight to what is not the focus of the picture. Where is the sky? Is that a telephone pole coming out of her ear? Should I be shooting toward the sun... I can't see the screen but maybe the photo will be ok...

So, back to Nikon and Canon. You should buy a Canon. My friend Ryo works for Canon and he has a little baby so your money goes to a nice guy. (ed. note: this is not the baby - this is Wyatt)

Or Pentax. Pentax gives you more features for the same cost.

Or Panasonic. For around $399 you can get a 12MP camera system that shoots HD video too.

Or Olympus. The only camera company that put their pro cameras under a waterfall to show how water resistant they are.

Or Nikon. Just 'cause. Oh and you can mount the last 50 years worth of lenses on most of the cameras so you can get some cool lenses used for cheap.

But back to Canon; Ryo is an old friend.

On a related note. I spent the last two weeks fooling around with a Canon FF + 50mm lens. It was like shooting with my Nikon F but with more buttons that never seemed to be in the right place. I'll figure it out.

I want to end with a catchy tag line like Clay Enos "make pictures."

Zoom with your feet.