A 14-year-old has no less photography capability than an adult... Arguably, they are more capable -- More capable of learning the technology, more capable of developing a new artistic eye, etc.
So a camera for a 14-year-old faces the same dilemma as a camera for an adult who is just starting to get more serious about their photography.
And there is a major dilemma -- a dilemma which is destroying the consumer camera industry.
All those cheap entry level cameras? Even the entry level dSLR's with entry level lenses......
A good phone will take better photographs. In fact, even if you're an expert at using the equipment, a good phone still has better potential.
A good phone, even if you stripped out everything except the camera, would be a $500-$1,000 camera. To a large degree, the phones rely on computational photography, which the entry level cameras cannot utilize to any great degree. Go back 5 years, computational photography was a poor substitute for hardware, but that's no longer the case.
Looked at in that perspective, it's not surprising that phone would be superior to a $200-$300 camera.
Resolution is in the same ballpark these days. A good phone can do long exposure handheld, while a traditional camera would require a tripod. I have the iphone 12 Pro, it has 3 cameras giving a range of 13mm to 52mm. This gives just slightly shorter telephoto range than an entry level dSLR kit lens, and it gives me much wider range for super-wide angle shooting. The resolution is only slightly lower than a dSLR, while fast lenses and computational photography give me far superior low light performance and background blur than I would get with an entry level camera.
I literally own over $10,000 of camera gear -- And there are plenty of times when my phone is just as good.
So here is what I have found happens -- Hand someone a good phone and an entry level camera -- After a week, the entry level camera gets buried in the back of the closet. It serves little purpose. It's like taking someone who wants to learn how to keyboard, who already has a good laptop computer, giving them an old manual typewriter.
Photography and the camera market have changed. There are older people who still simply have the old habit of needing a dedicated camera in their hand. But particularly for younger people, a dedicated camera is superfluous.
Buying a dedicated camera is pointless now for most generic starter photography. Instead, the remaining market is relevant for those seeking a specific purpose.
Someone looking to shoot wildlife, who may benefit from a long (and expensive) telephoto lens.
Professionals, looking to be able to make large high resolution prints..
Those looking for speed and low light performance that will surpass phones (phones will beat entry level cameras. For $2,000-$5,000 and $500-$5000 lenses will give performance you can't get from a phone).
It is true that a cheap entry level dSLR will have the 3 basic dials to teach the technical know-how of photography, ISO, aperture and shutter speed. But unless someone intends to pursue more advanced photography, that's a bit like teaching a younger driver how to drive stick shift. Even more so, take 18-year-old who already owns a Mercedes (maybe gifted from their grandparents) with an automatic transmission, would you go buy the 18-year-old a cheap used car with a stick shift, just so they can learn how to use stick shift?
So what's my point after this long spiel.
Ask your child if they feel limited by their phone's camera, and ask them how they feel limited. Then determine if there is a dedicated camera solution for that need. But handing a 14-year-old an entry level dSLR will just result in a dSLR in the closet.
