Product review: Mamiya 645E, shooting medium format for a bargain

A while ago, I reviewed the Mamiya 645 1000S, a old entry level 645 film camera. It came out aiming at beginners in the field of medium format (MF), and it is quite frankly among the best image quality / price ratio you can get. The problem is that it's very old, and finding one that is not worn out with a working meter is hard.

I recently killed mine, the film winding mechanism couldn't tell anymore where was the next frame. The meter, although functional, became 1 stop off. It lasted 30+ years, not bad compared to the average life expectancy of a modern camera !

The lens however, a 80mm f2.8 (equivalent to a 50mm on "full frame" 35mm camera) is still superb, so I decided to got for a post 2000 version of this camera, the 645E.

What does it do

It is literally a 645 1000s with automatic aperture priority mode and a few improvements. In other words, the 645 1000S was suggesting the speed but you have to manually pick it, on this one shutter speed sets itself in auto mode.
Focus is manual, which on a spot metered camera is not an issue since you'll take time to work your shot. You can do multiple exposure and max shutter speed is 1/1000s. That simple, which is great became you can focus on the image instead of figuring out what is in what menu.

So why a 645E instead of a 1000S for even cheaper? 

Well you can find one in mint condition, while 1000S are now pretty much all dead. 

Why getting a Mamiya 645 at all?

• First of all, look at those images (from the 645 1000s). That's why you want to own a medium format camera. If you don't like that kind of output, you don't want one. If you do, and you wonder why your digital work never feels like that, then you want one. But keep reading, the best is yet to come...

• As promised, the best part: you can get that for less than a cheap compact camera. Let's be specific here: this camera goes for $300 with the lens. Mint. The cost of buying film and getting it developed is about $0.80 per shot, which means that the price difference between this and a Fuji X100 will get you about 1100 shots. Of course, when shooting film, you also pay a lot more attention to crafting, shoot less pictures and therefore improve your skills a lot faster. "Wait what? But but...I spend $5600 in my Canon 80D MarkXXV and it doesn't look any better ! Actually my B&W and the bokeh are not that nice! Could it be that...they are lying to us? We don't need 22nd century electronics and Active Power Sensor 3000 SPX technology to have beautiful rendering? - ALELOUYA ! Your eyes have been opened my friend. Join us in celebration of actual pictures instead of marketing techno crap !" On a more serious touch, this is a cheap and perfect supplement to an SLR, instead of buying an other accessories, you can get that for a very different experience.

• Why Mamiya and not Pentax or Contax, who also offer excellent 645 cameras? Well frankly, they are slightly better built than the Mamiya, but Pentax lenses now cost an arm because they launched the digital version, which pulled used lens prices up. The Contax is excellent, but harder to find and more expensive. Mamiya wanted to go entry level with this camera, and while the built quality remains correct, image quality is the same while prices are amazingly low second hand. 

You get the picture: if you are to shoot portraits in particular, you will want to play with depth of field, have nice bokeh and crisp images. Nothing gives you that better that a large sensor / film. Unfortunately, digital sensor are at best 33x44 mm, which is...a joke. It should not even be called medium format. 

Real medium format (60x70mm) leads to enormous cameras with often no built in metering. On the other hand 645 (60x45 mm) offer a format much much larger that full frame SLRs, with comparable size and automation. And it that field, the Mamiya is simply...well the cheapest.

If you want to start film photography, you could go for a Nikon FE / FE2 / FM or Canon equivalent. This would allow you to recycle your SLR lenses. But why? Why when for $150 more you can shoot medium format?

An other very important point, I mentioned that several times here: film photography with spot metering forces you to make decision in exposure and focus, so you actually work your technique. And most digital shooters really need that.

Finally the camera looks exotic, and all the SLR owners with big "I have something to compensate" lenses will be jealous of your edge :)

Here are some exemple from me and other people, with credits in captions:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/farhad_yassavoli/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanabramsphotography/

How to select your equipment

You're about to spend a considerable amount of money in a camera, and you have the feeling marketers are trying to sell you weird features without ever explaining you what does what? Well you've got to  spend 10 mins reading this. I guaranty it will help you a lot! You can also email me if you have a question at ronanindublin@yahoo.fr . I will tell you about:

1. A few rules you should keep in mind when buying photography equipment. Following those rules will allow you to not only get what you really wanted, but also to save money.
2. A couple of essential accessories you will realize are very useful, that you should plan in your budget
3. Places where I bought over the years and got satisfied, and places where I was less satisfied.

Then you can go read my gear recommandation page, that I try to keep updated with the lastest stuff.

Let's start with my rules to buy equipment. It is expensive, get over it photography is not a cheap hobby. This is why you gotta clear your mind of all the noise, and stick to a few principles that will guarantee you buy the right thing.

Rule#1 : Figure out what you intend to use the camera for

Camera are like cars: you can't get a camera to be the best at everything. If it's rather good an everything, it is never excellent at anything. Pick you fight. The other important thing is that some camera bodies (camera without lens) are very versatile, it's the lens choice that will determine what it's gonna be best at. I would use that typology of photography use:

A memory collection device, no expectations other than cheap and portable. You'll mostly care about size and durability. Any cheap compact will do the trick, and to be honest, many smartphones. I advise you try to get one of those shock / water proof cameras, they'll be able to handle your parties and days at the beach.

Photography enthusiast, you want a multipurpose camera but under a budget constraint: it's gotta be good at everything, and this will be your only camera. You care less if it's not so light. You'll need to make sure it's actually versatile. Many compacts don't offer a wide enough angle for landscape, or bright enough lens for portraits. You should be looking at:

• Maximum and minimum focal length. For landscape, you want a camera that goes under 24mm.
• The bigger the zoom, the lesser the quality. Don't get theX16 zoom. Prefer a camera with a 24-100mm for example, or 18-70mm something in that range.
• Quality lenses have usually a higher aperture, it means they can let more light in, with allows of course shooting in low light, but also make those nice sharp subject / blurry background effects. Prefer a compact with a lens that opens wide, you can tell by the f number: the smaller, the better (it goes down to f2 or f1.8 at best on a good compact).
• Make sure you don't get a compact that has a tiny sensor. If you are on a budget, you'll never be able to buy the very large sensors, but if you hesitate between 2 cameras, google which one has the biggest one. It allows better low light and image quality in general.

Photography enthusiast, with little budget constraint, likely to show interest in different areas.You can afford multiple cameras or, more likely, lenses. You are willing to first get geared up for one purpose, then progressively equip. Don't get an 800$ multipurpose lens (18-200mm for example), I guaranty that in a year or two, you'll realize your mistake, sell it to buy 2 prime lenses that are specialized, and you will have lost money in the process. Here is a list of the different areas you might be into:

• Portraits / people photography.You focus on your friends, GF / BF, kids, family or models.You do weddings for them once in a while. You should be looking at:
• A fix lens with a focal length between 50mm and 200mm. I personally prefer to have a 105mm or a 135mm to catch spontaneous portrait without being seen, and a 50mm to get close to the action, and shoot a portrait within a scene.
• Keep in mind: if you don't buy a full frame camera, you have to multiplie the focal length by 1.5 to know what the real length will be. Smaller sensor  are only seeing the middle part of the image thru the lens, with is equivalent to a x1.5 zoom. If you buy a 50mm on a DX (Nikon 3100, 5100, D90, D7000, Canon 550D, 600D, 7D), you actually have a 75mm.
• You want a fast lens. In photography a fast lens is a lens that opens wide, in our case, f2.0 at least. Luckily most fix lenses for portrait are fast, from f2.0 to f1.2 . Keep in mind that the faster the more expensive, and also, some very lenses are not worth it: for example, some of them open up to f1.4, but they are only good from f2.0 and above. In that case, there's no point buying the f1.4 version.

You want to be able to separate the subjet from the background

• Land and city scape / architecture. It does not move, but it requires very clean images, usually a tripod and very wide shots. Equipment will be rather the opposite of what you need for portraits. You should be looking at:
• A wide angle, from 28mm down to 10mm. 
• Those lenses will have distortion (as if you'll looking into a spoon), make sure you have a software with the lens profile covered, so you can get rid of distortion easy.
• Fast lenses are not important, you'll be shooting at F8, F11 and above in order to get most of the picture sharp. Hence, you're likely to use a tripod.
• Prefer a camera that performs correctly in medium range ISO. If you shoot architecture and the sun isn't high up in the sky, you might not have a tripod with you, you will need to shoot at iso 800 or 1600 in order to be able to use low apertures.

You want to avoid distortion, and have large depth of field (= you want all things sharp, close and far)

• Action and wildlife. Stuff that moves, rather quick, without noticing you in advance. Rarely happens in ideal light conditions. This is likely to require the most expensive equipment, get over it right now or you'll suffer later. You should be looking at:
• winning at the lottery
• a camera that performs brilliantly at very high ISO (in 2012 standards, you can get a clean image at 6400, and 12800 after noise reduction). 
• telezoom lenses, they are heavy, very expensive, and average product don't perform at all. You can only go for the best.
• a heavy duty tripod
• did I mention it's pricey? we're talking about a 5000$ budget at best (Nikon D700 + lens + pod) up to 10 000$ (Nikon D4 +lenses + pod). However, thanks to significant progress in sensors, you can give it a serious try with a Nikon D7000 (1300$ body only), but you will spend a few more Gs on lenses.
• You'll need a proper heavy duty backpack.
• You'll need a good insurance, that stuff get's stolen, and broken.

• Travel and backpacking. It's a very specific need, it needs to be versatile, capable of shooting in bad situation, yet durable and as light as possibly can be. You should be looking at:
• weight and size. I did India with a Mamiya 645 and a DSLR, I regretted it every single day.
• tropicalization, in other words water and dust proofing. Most upper end DSLRs offer it, unfortunately, they don't score very high at weight and size.
• Versatile lenses (2 maximum) that are not to heavy. You'll prefer a 35mm on a full frame camera if you are to take just one single prime lens. Otherwise, a 24-70mm f2.8 as your one and only lens would be a good choice, but this is likely to be very heavy. You can also go for a wide angle (traveling = landscapes and architecture) like a 20mm, and a portrait lens (135mm to capture people without being to close). Last good combination, a 16-35mm zoom for street scene and lanscape, and a fix 135mm.
• You might want to give up the idea of a DSLR. Lately many premium compact with interchangeable lenses came out, some with good lenses, pocket size and water proofing. Read my camera selection page to see what is my choice of the moment.

Rule#2 What make the quality of a system is the lens and the sensor (or film if you shoot film)

Here are thing that in no way impact the quality of your pictures: FPS, Mega pixels,  maximum ISO performance, built in post processing stuff, size of the zoom, etc. All of those have to do with rule#1: you might need them according to what you want to shoot, or not. No matter what you picked from rule number one, you want to make sure you invest your money mainly on the best lens, and the best sensor.

Rule#3 : You will be exposed to a lot of marketing when buying, a lot of it is absolute nonsense

Photography is essentially the same since the 60ies. Digital has made it more accessible, and allow different things. But what makes a good camera is the same stuff. If you buy right in the first place, you are very unlikely to need an other camera for a long time. Non of those fancy features will be of any use, they just have to reinvent the wheel to justify launching a new range of product all the time.

Rule#4 : If you want to buy a new camera because your picture don't look good enough, 90% chance that it's your fault and not the camera's fault

Most manufacturer keep implying in there communication that getting whatever will make you take better pictures. No no and no again. It will only be true in case you did not respect rule#1 and picked equipment that was not adapted to your need. Yes better cameras make it easier, they offer superior productivity, durability, but in normal light condition and if you use the right gear the right way, a 8000$ system will make no difference as opposed to a 1000$ system. I am willing to demonstrate it if you don't believe me.

Whatever you own, learn how to use it properly before thinking of buying more.

Rule#5 : A great picture is not about sharpness, noise or any of those things that help manufacturers sell more stuff

A great picture is about composition, use of light, an original subject, and original angle that when they come together, make you feel something about a picture. It can be blurry, it can be noisy, you'll have not doubt it's a great picture if it is one.

Rule#6 : If you camera has interchangeable lenses, invest on lenses, not on the camera body

Fact: camera bodies keep improving extremely fast. I kept my last digital body for 5 years, but it's been limiting me since the beginning due to its poor performance ever in medium light condition. 3 years later a body came out that was brilliant in low light. 2700$... I'm glad I did not buy it because now, a body comes out with the same low light performance, but 3 times more resolution and full HD video ! I can't spend 3Gs every two 2years.

Fact: lenses last forever. They also resell really well, sometimes for more than the original price. Each lens might see a dozen camera bodies in its lifetime. This is where money should go first.

ESSENTIAL ACCESSORIES

A Tripod
So under exploited by amateurs, there is so much you can do with it, especially in terms of landscape and night photography. If you have a light camera, you don't even need the fancy stuff, anything with 3 legs that will keep it steady, even a tiny one ! This only will allow you to shoot landscape in low light, suffering from blurry sunset? You need a tripod !

A bag

Normal behavior in camera bags: you buy the cheapest, then you do stuff, travel, you realize your bag is not convenient, too visible, you buy and other one. In the first place, buy one that:

• is not screaming "I contain a camera"
• can handle a little more than what you have, trust me you will buy accessories
• can be more than a camera bag.They do small discret backpacks with a camera compartment, those a perfect for traveling. A jumper, a bottle of water, your camera.

A UV filter

Not so much for UV, but to protect the lens. You screw it if front of the lens, it will take the damages in case you crash it, costing you 30$ instead of 500$. I have one on every lens I own.

A Graduated Filter
For lanscape only. Suffering from pictures where the sky is just white and the rest in normal? Or the sky is blue and the rest is all dark? You need a filter that will lower light coming from the sky only, so it all comes out nice.

A Black Rapid Strap
For travelers and wedding photographers. Have you ever done a wedding with 2 cameras, including 1 SLR hanging around your neck for 7 hours? I did. It hurt for 2 days. Lucky they do some nice straps on which the camera can slide when you pull it up, and naturally lay under your arm when you don't use it. It might seem like a gadget, but when I tried it, I though "holy crap, how could I live without one before?". 

WHERE TO BUY

Over the years I bought cameras and lenses from most of the well know sites: ebay, adorama, B&H, Amazon, Calumnet, Keh, Pixamania. Here is my honest opinion based on facts and experience (repeated), on each of them:

Ebay: A

A great idea, but keep in mind that Ebay is just the intermediary. look for sellers that are rated 99.8 at least, that take paypal, then you are safe. The thing with Ebay is that "deals" often aren't deals. For 3 months you might see the camera you are looking for at 500$ used, and one day there are 30 of them ar 300$. One rule: be patient. Other that that, it's a great place to get used film cameras that cost 4000$ for less than 1000$. I got a refurbished Nikon DSLR there once, it was a great deal. Ebay depends on you: be smart, and you'll do great.

Amazon: A+

For new equipement only. You won't find very niche product, but appart from that, Amazon has the best customer service online I have ever seen. They are properly amazing, they have to be loosing money on that ! I mean, something I don't receive a package, email them, they send it again for free, I end up receiving it twice. Once I received a damage camera: UPS stopped by my place to collect it, but they shipped a new one the minute I called to complain. Those guys understand that the client rules. 

Pixmania: C+

The opposite of Amazon. Good prizes, yes, but it comes with a catch. They don't deliver on time, ever. You pay for fast delivery, it's 10 days late, they'll never reimburse the fast shipping fee. That mentality was comfirmed by friends working there. Avoid if you are in a hurry. Similar experiences from too many users.

Keh : F

Bad experience on used equipement: not what is described, takes MONTHS to get it replaced, sometimes not by what you asked, shipping fees are never reimbursed. Multiple similar feedback is easy to find if you google it.

B&H: A

The lords of online photography retail. They have everything, they ship fast, they price correctly. I never had to use customer service, but I've been very happy with them. Great for used gear.

Adorama: C

The clone of B&H. I used to buy a lot from them, until I got disappointed several times in a raw. First they try to sell me an obviously broken viewfinder on a Mamiya RZ, in store. The salesman trying to force it onto my camera, nearly breaking it. They were selling it "as new". Then I ordered a Fujica 645, it arrived broken, obviously not from transportation, it was impossible since the damage was on a part of the camera that was in the center of the box. They shipped it broken, they knew it. I only got the camera paid back, not the shipping. Then I ordered a Mamiya 645 1000S with a metered finder. I received one with a non metered finder. I called to complain, I got a price on a metered finder, and I received.... the same non metered finder in the box of a metered one !!! There is a clear intention of robbing people. I ended up getting what I wanted on Ebay. Shipping costs always at my expense.

Calumnet: n/a

Only used them once, nothing special at that stage.

Why buying a DSLR body is probably a mistake.

Ok, help me help you not waste your money, and take better pictures. A bit of related entertainment first, then a story.

We all know one of those guys :)  Anyway, before getting to the story, a brief but necessary reminder. If you read that blog, you know what's my approach: I like photography because I like pictures. The process of taking them, looking at them, and hearing people telling me they feel something special when looking at them, relationship with the subject (I mostly do portraits) etc. A good image is a subject in a given light, an effort to put yourself in the right place, and that moment when your imagination meets the situation, and bam ! You just took a great shot. Cameras are accessories to all of that, they can be sexy, do amazing stuff, but they are not what matters. I still use a Nikon FE, a Mamiya RZ most of the time, it does the job great, interfering little in that above described process, and those are decades old cameras. I have this blog for many reasons, one of them being education of customers, so that they make more sense of their camera purchase, and save money to go on a trip where they can actually take pictures :)

But let's move ahead with the story. Important note, this is addressing mostly the casual shooter, not so much the advanced and savvy photographer...although....well I'll let you judge.

I was on a vacation in Tuscani (that's a lovely region of Italy), and some must-see cities are of course suffering a much expected tourists infestation. Can't blame them, I am one of them.
So it's been about 10 years since the first amateurs have been shooting around with DSLR cameras. You would also expect some sort of correlation between ownership of an DSLR system, income and intellectual abilities. You would expect that someone who spends 1k to 5k in a camera system would at least read the manual, or actually link the value of the product to their investment in learning how to use it, to their passion in the matter. Well it seems like it isn't the case. About 50% of all DSLR users I saw during my break were using the kit zoom, in full auto, with the flash blazing at every picture.

I just love that scene, always the same:

1. holding the camera like a pro, with confidence, telling the wife how to pose, moving like a reporter. 
2. hitting the shutter and....ZAAAAAP ! flash pops up and goes on.
3. looking at the camera like a kitten who just got surprised by a jumping object, thinking "why did the flash go off? Was it my even from my camera?"

I would get it if this is your first DSLR, or your very first camera, and you just got it before the trip; but there's no way that's the case at this scale. I see around me people owning SLRs for years and still incapable of using more that 10% of the camera's capabilities. Not that they are stupid, they are just kinda lazy, or mostly they bought it for the wrong reasons and don't actually want those features. It take 10 min on Google to find a few good posts on how to play with depth of field, pick the lenses that you really need, or use manual and semi manual features to be in control of your images. It takes 1 hour to go thru them with your camera in your hand. That doesn't seem like much when you just spent 2 grands. I really believe SLRs offer functions that, if you don't need them, are a burden more than anything. I'll get to that later.

On the other hand, it is true that manufacturers did everything they could to make you want one for all the wrong reasons. Claiming that you'll take better pictures, stimulating that awful pixel peeping habit that makes you want to take pictures of newspapers to see how sharp it remains when you zoom in, and much more in that same vein.

So here we are, I've seen hundreds of tourists with a DSLR walking the streets, a vast majority having no clue what to do with it. It is even worst of a money waste when you realize that a significant proportion among those have upgraded from a good compact, or an older yet very capable SLR. Why? No seriously why upgrading to a semi-pro or pro piece of gear if 1- you don't want to learn how it works 2- since you were not using 25% of you previous camera's abilities, your limitations surely don't come from the gear in the first place.

What happens is the following. It'll sound mean, but I know that process because well... I've done it too. So take it as shared wisdom from past experiences:

• We love taking images, it's just cool, a tad bit magic, fun and nice for memories. In other words, we'll have to get a camera at some point.

• We start looking at cameras, and if we have a little cash sleeping at the bank, we quickly get excited by the nicer ones. 

• We start thinking that those features are necessary. Technical terms with letters and numbers, we barely understand what they mean (or not at all), but we have our mind made up: we need ISO 25600 and 1/16 000 speed and cross matrix alpha 34 sensor BS3000.

• Camera manufacturers need you to replace equipment every 2 years max. If you realize a good camera can do 10 years or even much more, they are screwed. They'll do everything they can to convince you that the camera makes the picture. And you kinda want to hear that, you are a bit bored with life lately, so you want to get excited about a new product, and suddenly your old camera is full of flaws, or even broken (thank you kitty / dog / 1yo baby, you come in handy on this).

• It's done, you ordered a expensive DSLR. It's totally justified because you've always loved photography (as the zero photo exhibits you've ever been to, or the absence of any photos of your walls can attest). You secretly want people to see you as a cool arty guy who'll go read Hemingway in a dodgy bar after capturing a few streets moments (mostly homeless dudes).

Rings a bell? I know, I'm sorry :)

So what's my point? Indeed I won't just make you feel bad about your purchase for no reason, that'd just be sadistic. I want to make you aware that whatever camera you own, unless it's a very entry level compact or very first generation digital, you probably have a huge margin for improvement without spending a dime, and you can achieve that by learning how to use it.

You have an DSLR, you want a newer one? 

You probably could do a lot by learning how to use yours, and at best get a lens that corresponds to your needs. A premium SLR does nothing better in regards to image quality. Lenses do. A premium SLR is weather sealed, super fast, includes productivity features for pros....but try taking the same pictures in the same conditions, it'll 99% similar results. Going Nikon D90 from years ago to a D600 will make no difference whatsoever, especially if you never shoot in anything else that P or full auto modes. If you already master you DSLR, what you probably need is better lenses. If not, you need to open the manual.

You have a compact and you want an SLR? 

What do you use it for? Vacation pictures? Then no you don't want an SLR. It's bulky & cumbersome, consumes batteries and memory cards like crazy, requires its own backpack. I only own cameras that I chose for a single purpose: professional quality for a specific purpose. SLRs are for people shooting war, lions, sports on the side of a football pitch. I got a DSLR because I owned premium prime lenses from old Nikon 35mm cameras, but if Nikon had been making a compact full frame body, I'd have bought that over an SLR a million times. 

So when do you probably really need a new camera as a casual user?

• Yours is so old that the sensor is crap over 400 iso. For casual use, being able to shoot in low light is pretty nice: restaurant pics, children running inside the house etc. It's a must have for a digital camera. Nowadays, most compacts are very clean up until 3200 iso and sometimes even 6400.

• It's so old that the shutter react 1 second after you press it. That sucks, get a modern compact or mirror-less. You just can't keep missing the moment.

• You have a compact with a built in zoom, and you really love shooting portraits. You then need a prime fast lens. In that case, you probably should look into good mirror-less systems, not in SLRs. Sony Nex, Fuji X-whatever and else are a better bet. The fact that they are small is a blessing, image quality is the same as a non full frame DSLR (try proving me wrong on this, I'll quizz you on identical shots taken with both, you'll be wrong 50% of the time).

• You have a non-full frame SLR that took more that 100 000 frames. You should start budgeting for a new one, it might start dying soon. Or you might want to pick a mirror-less if you realized an SLR is not really what you needed.

In any other case, you probably should be doing this instead of buying an SLR body:

• Ask yourself if there is a gap between the kind of pictures you do, and the kind of pictures that you'd like to be able to take. If yes, figure out why. It's very likely to be a matter of framing, composition, depth of field. All of this can be learned in 1 hour, even on this blog !

• Once you've done that, if you realize that your camera doesn't allow those manipulations, you might want to consider replacing it. In that case, and remember I assume you are a casual shooter, I strongly recommend you pick an advanced compact or mirror-less over a DSLR. Keep one thing in mind: manufacturers also realized that DSLR are not what people really need. They'll keep selling them for as long as the can, so that you commit to a system with expensive lenses, but they are also rushing on producing premium compact and mirror-less systems. Those often include full auto options that allow some pretty cool stuff, probably what you really want as a casual shooter.

Finally, you'll never look like an idiot anymore with your cheap kit lens (since the cost of the SLR body consumed your entire budget) and your flash popping up in a sunny Italian summer day. You might not be excited by pictures as much as I am, but surely you'd like to honor your family and friend with better images, and avoid wasting your money.

DSLRs can be the worst enemy of an apprentice photographer.

Ooooh the troll title ! Yes, but I do have a solid point. Keep on reading :)

I started photography with a "premium compact", a Olympus C5050. It was slow, and rather automated. Then I got a job, and a bit of money. I went for what was appealing: a DSLR. Wooow, big and all technological, people were impressed, grrrr... That did make me happy back in the days. However, I felt very limited. I was under the impression photoshop allowed me more creativity than the camera itself. I actually believe the very nature of DSLRs lead people to actually work in photoshop instead of working on the camera. 

They, I got a Mamiya RZ67. Full manual film camera. Not even a light meter...I actually wonder what the batteries are for? And then only I learned how to master a camera. Proper photography came after. Why is that? DSLRs can be dangerous for someone who intends to learn photography. They trick you into doing all the wrong things. A Jedi Master would tell you they push you to the dark side, to easier, more appealing choices. 

1st Danger with DSLRs

Automation. You can go all manual with a DSLR, but how many of you shoot in full manual mode with spot metering? I bet less than 5%, ballpark figure. Well if you have never done it, you can't say you master your camera. You can't say you understand exposure, depth of field or any lever that allow you control of your creative approach. A DSLR makes choice based on a software. If you let it do it, what is the part of you in the picture you create? There are so many things to influence when shooting. Good photographers intend the result they obtain. They set up the camera the right way, shoot a few rolls of 10 shots each only and get 50% great shots or more on a total of 30 images. I don't know one DSLR only user who can claim such results. The big problem is: you have no constraint. You can just shoot tons, photoshop what can be, throw away the rest.  It takes me to my second point.

You surely won't get that ouf of a DSLR unless you force it into doing it. 

2nd Danger with DSLRs

Digital = shoot as much as you want. As said previously, without constraint, you have very low expectations. Know that when you show a portfolio to an editor or a gallery, you come with maximum 20 shots. All of them need to be equally good, you are only as good as your worst picture. When I started shooting film with 10 shots on each roll, I realize each picture was costing me about 1$. That makes you think twice about what you shoot ! You start framing, paying attention to details, exposing better etc. 

3rd  Danger with DSLRs

Digital sensors. Yes, they make it cheap to shoot. Yes they allow nice post processing. Yes they are astonishing in low light. However they have one massive weakness: dynamic range is rubbish. It means they are poorly capable of rendering an image that has very high contrast, with bright and dark zones. It also is so neutral color-wise that it naturally comes out boring. Film has a personality, it doesn't allow much margin but it surely doesn't come out boring. It also has tremendous dynamic range, positive film in particular.

Velvia 50 film: notice how the dark rocks anr bright sky both have great detail no matter how strong the contrast is. 

4nd Danger with DSLRs

Kit lenses. They are rubbish, expect in the case of very premium kits (on full frame cameras mostly). Apart from very specific cases that require flexibility, an actual photographer uses prime lenses only, i.e. lenses that are optimized for one focal length only and have much wider aperture. On larger format cameras, the physics is different, you can get superb depth at F5.6. On a 35mm camera, you need wider aperture to benefit from shorter depth of field, F2.0 or below.

So what should you do to make sure your DSLR doesn't not become the enemy of your photographic evolution?

1st thing to do

Either get a film SLR with no other automation than an aperture priority mode. It costs 100$ (nikon FE or anything equivalent if you have Canon lenses, Minolta or else). However I don't expect many of you will do it, so if you don't want to go thru that, simulate it: buy a 128MB memory card (it should cost about 20 cents now ^^) and go out to shoot only with that card. You'll have so little to shoot with, you'll have to pay attention and be very selective.

Olympus OM1

2nd thing to do

Use your camera with spot metering and aperture priority or full manual mode. At first it will suck. But then only you'll have to learn what does what. How to influence the camera to deliver what you want. You will learn how to control your camera to make it a simple intermediary between the image and your creative intentions.

3nd thing to do

Luckily, newest cameras have an HDR (high dynamic range) mode, use it. I don't mean to push you to do those horrible photoshop HDR effects that make your shots look like a poorly painted clown. I mean use the built in HDR that is supposed to simulate the dynamic range of film. The end result should look totally natural. 

HDR used properly: dark and bright elements show properly. Courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/47550048@N05/

4th thing to do

Don't buy the kit lens. If you really need a versatile lens, get a zoom, but not the kit lens. Get a better one. Appart from that, get 2 primes lenses. It will cost you less than one zoom, and it will allow proper shooting. I recommend a 35mm and an 85mm (full frame). Or just a 50mm. Then play with all the aperture range, and see what it does. 

This cost 120$, you have no excuse. 

5th and most important thing to do in order to become a better photographer.

Make a portfolio, even a virtual one. You might have a blog, a site, a flickr account. When making that portfolio, respect one rule: no more than 20 pictures in total. Keep only the best of the best. If you have only 5 pictures you would qualify as really good, then so be it. Make it 5. Talented photographers might have a 5 series of 12 great shots, but that's after 20 years of careers. 60 shots only... They probably shot hundreds of beautiful images, but they decide to show only the best. The exercise of being very picky is crucial. If your image is close to being great, but is not (focus on the wrong part, disturbing element, exposure not so good), use it as a baseline for an other attempt. Shoot until you have it perfect, then show it.

Check my site, I have many galleries with 5 or 6 shots only. And trust me, I know i'll get rid of a lot over time. I personally have a hard time keeping less. Working on it. 

If you upload all your 400 raw files in flickr every time you shoot, kill yourself. You're a lost cause.

Open letter to Canon and Nikon fanboys

"You Nikon morons are so fucked. The D800′s ass is grass, and the 5DX is going to be the lawnmower. Prepare to are penetration!!!!!!"

An example among many of what you can read all over the web by Canon (in this case) and Nikon "fanboys".

Aaah fanboys. It's like the Apple ones. I just can't understand how someone can decide to fight for a manufacturer as if the honor of his own family was in peril. I mean, what the hell is wrong with you people? What is missing in your lifes that you need to take side so vigorously in a marketing rivalry between brands? They are manufacturers of stuff... I mean who cares? Can't you see how totally disconnected from reality you gotta be to argue around that? I think you need a cause, something to do, get in a charity or something, I don't know.

First let's get my own subjectivity out of the way:

I tend to speak about Nikon stuff more, because I own some. So when a camera comes out, I can try it, I have the lenses etc. I made a call one day to go for Nikon because it had my very subjective and personal preference. I tried both, extensively, and I preferred Nikon. I still do. Why I do is not even relevant, the only constructive reaction to this is  to do the same as me and pick what you like best. Period, it's as far as it should concern you. What is in other people's plate at the restaurant is not of your matter.

Now photography is one of those activities, like for some home cinema fanatics and high fidelity audio lovers, where an strange behavior can occur. The so called photographer completely focuses on the equipement, to the point that his enthusiasm is about upgrading, buying more, analyzing how whatever detail became so much better than with the previous gear. I am myself in a weird position, I shoot with old gear because I really am obsessed by the pictures and this old gear does the job well already. But I need to speak about gear in order for that blog to get some traction. Nothing bad in getting a little geeky once in a while I suppose.

Back to that strange behavior. I first noticed it when younger, via my dad, when I got to meet guys that were so obsessed by high fidelity sound systems that they were spending the price of a fine car in it, borrowing different cables to see how the trebles are impacted; that kind of stuff. Those guys are only listening when sitting in a perfect triangle with the speakers, otherwise it's not respecting stereo rendering. Those guys however, never play a song in their cars, never sing along, or even go to a frakin' concert ! They buy 12 CDs a week and listen to them once just to see how whatever instrument sound on their system. Let me tell you as it is: that shit's fucked up. When I listen to Black by Pearl Jam in my shower, I scream along like a pig, I can't hear half the notes, but I runs through my veins !

If you find that pathetic too, think about it: when you pull your DSLR in the street, and some other "photographer" comes to you, where are they looking at? At the scene you're shooting, or at your camera trying to read what model it is?

Ah ah, that rings a bell doesn't it ! 

Well fanboys of all brands, let me tell you something: I could not give a damn about you, but your blind naive receptivity to marketing make it so that those same brands you worship, instead of focusing on what actually matters, focus on seducing you. As a consequence, the actual photographer doesn't get served and they keep promoting BS "innovations". In the end, you are shooting yourself in the foot. An other things or two: 

• We never needed 2000$ of electronics, us actual photographers, to take a good shot. 
• We dream of larger sensors to finally have large format image feel, with digital convenience. But this is nowhere close to happen with you guys getting all horny online about how many pixels, how many fps you can get. Brands will follow the herd, and we keep having small sensor with tons of crap around.
• When is the last time you took an actually watchable picture? I'm serious, I have seen so many times guys with more gear than you can imagine showing their images proudly, and not even realizing that not one shot was printable, not even by accident. 
• If I look for more of your comments online, will I even find one, just one comment about an image? How it made you feel, why you liked it?
• How come that when I post stuff on great photographers on this site, nearly every single shot was taken by what you would consider a crap camera?

Answers belong to you. 

This took me an old manual focus lens, a 35yo 100$ manual focus central spot metering camera. 

Why getting fix focal lenses VS zooms.

You might have noticed that even compact cameras with interchangeable lenses come with a range of fix focal (also called prime) lenses.  The much anticipated Fuji X-Pro 1 for example, comes with a 3 primes. No zoom at all at launch. The not flawless but yet very good Fuji X100 is a fix 35mm camera. Also I haven't seen a zoom lens on a medium format camera (what pros who don't shoot action actually use) ever.

There is a reason to this: appart from specific cases that require flexibility (shooting a wedding, reporters, etc), it's nearly always best to use a prime lens.

Nikon 135mm f/2.0D

Funnily, every kit lens sold with a DSLR is a zoom that actually comes pretty cheap. There's a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with Nikon or Canon executives feeling all generous and christmassy: those kit lenses are crap. Appart for really premium kits (D4, D700, 5D mkII) of course, but then you do pay the price. 

Those 18-55mm lenses than you get for about 200$ in a kit are the result of manufacturers making you believe that what makes a picture is the camera body. It is in no way the case. What makes the picture is you, then the lens. The camera body is just an interface between you and the lens. Some are better than other for sure, but trust me if I shoot with a 35yo 100$ FE and a 2500$ F6 with the same lens, same film, you can't see the difference. Same goes while shooting a D80 or D700: same lens in normal light condition, you just can't tell.

I'll put aside cases when you just can afford changing lenses and really need the option of zooming in an out. Wedding is one of them, documentary, and I'm guessing other stuff but I never encountered them. I am completely fine shooting primes only. So why are they better:

1/ They are smaller and ligher in anyway: they actually weight less. It's pretty normal since they are mechanically simpler.

2/ They perform better than any zoom, even for sometimes a quarter of the price: sharper, less distortion, etc. Since you have only one length, it can be optimize just for this length when zoom lenses have to make compromise.

3/ They can open wide, down to F1.2 when the best zooms are stuck at F2.8. You can shoot in low light better, get ultra nice bokeh etc. 

Nikon 50mm f/1.2 bokeh on a Nikon D7000

4/ They cost a lot less. A 350$ modern prime lens is unmatched by a 1000$ zoom. A good zoom that actually compares usually costs from 800$, up to 1500$. My best prime and probably one of the best on the market, the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 AIS costed me 650$, the price of a rather cheap zoom.

5/ It forces you to compose better. You are given a field of view by the lens, you need to interact with your subject, move, turn around it etc. Tell me if that rings a bell: how many time did you not know how to compose a shot, so you just unzoomed to get it all, then maybe photoshop will do the trick with a bit of cropping? I knew it :p Well with a prime lens, you have a given frame so you have to decide what to cut, what to include etc. Beginners working with prime lenses just do improve faster.

Prime lenses lead to more refined composition.

Ok but a a prime lens can only do on thing, so how many of them do I need to cover the range of my needs ???

I'd say 3 is optimal. A wide angle, a 35 or 50mm for multipurpose, and a portrait lens (100mm or 135mm). Remember, they cost lens...sorry less,  so you could get all three for the price of a premium zoom.

Why you should buy used equipement.

Photography is an expensive hobby. If it was your job, the cost of gear would actually pretty low. A camera cost far less than a restaurant ! But as a side activity, it can cost you an arm if you get carried on into a gear frenzy.

Luckily, a lot of people are totally obsessed by buying tons of gear, certain that they will get better photographers. That makes camera manufacturers very happy ! As a consequence, they do sell a lot of used equipment. As for many other things, Ebay will become your best friend :)

 If you truly want to reach the heights of proper landscape / portrait photography,  this is how much it costs.

Why should you buy used?

Obviously because it is much cheaper, but also because cameras, unlike computers, haven't fundamentally improved since the 80ies. In 1995, a Nikon F5 has faster AF, FPS and metering system than 99% of the actual DSLR production. 

Of course marketer at Canon and Nikon will tell you the contrary, and no, I am not denying significant improvements occurred. You can shoot faster, more conveniently, in more extreme light conditions than ever before. However the question is: do you need any of that?

It is very likely that you don't. 

For example, if you want to shoot landscapes, or artistic portraits, nothing justifies buying a brand new camera. Of course if you are rich, forget it. You can also stop reading this article :) 

Shooting landscape of artistic portraits (with a posing model) non professionally can be done with an entry level DSLR and any tripod. It can be done marvelously with a film camera for much less money and better results too. Let it be very clear: a 400$ D3100 will do the same as a 5000$ D3 if you shoot with proper light and set your camera right. The same. The D3 is just faster, more resistant, more convenient; picture quality however won't be better if used properly.

If you shoot landscape in particular, you must - I insist you MUST - go for a larger format than 35mm (that is to say bigger than DSLR). A medium format camera, a really great one, will not cost you more than 1000$ all included on Ebay, when they still cost 3000-5000$ new ! Why? Because pros are selling their own for the convenience of digital, a convenience you don't need as an amateur. Also because it out performs 35mm cameras.

If you shoot wildlife or action, then yes, modern cameras are worth it. They perform faster, they can shoot well up to ISO 6400.
If you like making movies, a modern DSLR can be a great all in one tool for both. But how many of you actually shoot then edit movies?

If you back pack, maybe a more recent lighter camera is also a good idea.

If you are a pro of course, a state of the art camera can reduce your effort, make you more productive, but it's a totally different logic and need.

An other reason why to buy used: most of japanese or german gear is extremely durable. Nothing to do with you plastic XBOX 360. I own 30yo cameras that work as good as new, not one part moving or shacking. Consider it is like a very nice swiss watch. I personally apply that to everything: I bought my car like that, why paying full price when a as good as new model is 50% off with 30 000 miles? It can still go for 100 000 miles easy !

Last but not least, you won't targeted by thieves if your gear looks like it's already been stolen twice.

I shot these for the brand Zumo with a Nikon D80 & Nikon D700 , it was printed Xlarge on their shops here in Dublin although they are 10 -12MP cameras. My point: the used SLR you can get now for cheap was the pros' camera of 5 years ago ! If they were happy with it, why shouldn't you

What should you buy used?

Mostly camera bodies. First of all they are less risky to buy than a lens. Then buying a lens can be a 30 years investment worth the extra bucks, when a camera body will need to be replace long before the lens.

I however did buy used lenses, but not online. I could inspect them in the store, test them and return them in case I had a problem. If arguing with online sellers doesn't scare you, go for lenses as well but pay attention to where you buy !

Example of great products you can get used for much cheaper.

Any Nikon 35mm SLR: Nikon F4, Nikon F5 for auto focus bodies, FE, FE 2, FM 2 , FM3A and all from that line up for even cheaper manual focus cameras. They work with your modern lenses, and they do great.

Any DSLR if the shutter count is not too high. A camera is usually recommended for a given number of shots. For example, my old D80 was covered by warrantee up to 80 000 shots. More premium camera can go up to 200 000 or 400 000 shots without a problem. Most cameras have a counter built in, check it out ! It in good condition from a certified seller, a camera with less than 40 000 shots is a great deal.

If you want a very low light camera for wildlife or sport, even now you can get some used product that perform brilliantly. A Nikon D700 is fundamentally the same as a D3S. It's a non video version of a D4. Many are dying from intensive professional use, but find an rich amateur who can't live without the latest gear, and get one for half price used ! I guarantee that with moderate use, unless you decide to make video, you'll be able to keep it for a decade with seeing any desirable improvement coming from new products.

Finally, medium format gear. It cost half a car new, and the price of a compact used. It's like a guy selling a Ferrari half price after driving it 2000 miles.

My D80 in India in February. I dare you to tell me you can see a difference between this an any more recent  DSLR.

Where to buy used ?

• Ebay: if you pick the right seller (99.9 or 100% happy buyers)
• Adorama: take only item in excellent -, excellent or demo condition. They do deliver quick, but they also do try to rip you off sometime. They once sent me a camera that was obviously broken before packing (they paid back). They also tried, in store, to convince me that an obviously damaged viewfinder was perfectly fine. They overal cover for their crap, but it's a bit annoying.
• B&H: so far superbly happy with them, but they have less choice than Adorama for used gear.
• Amazon: sometimes great used stuff but less choice
• Keh: avoid. Very very dodgy customer service, sometimes months to get delivers a bad product, more to get it exchanged.