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.

The only real question you should ask yourself...

...if you feel the photographic fire burning inside you : do I spend 3000$ upgrading my gear to full frame SLR and XMAS, or do I spend that money on the real stuff, medium format film gear?

Ok I should have said "the only real question in case you are about to buy a full frame camera and feel the photographic fire burning inside you", but that'd be less catchy.
If you don't have a DSLR at all, get one. It's so convenient, gives you room to practice etc. It's not sufficient to fully explore the scope of your photographic potential, but it's a must have.

Back to Ze Biblical Question of our times: full frame or medium format film?

That is pretty clear to me:

• If you shoot sports, wildlife, porn or anything that moves, get a full frame DSLR. 
• If you shoot portraits, landscapes, and a lot of black and white get a medium format film camera.

Remember, a full frame SLR sensor is 36x24 mm, medium format film is used up to 60x90mm. When we know how crucial sensor / film size is, it makes you think twice about going 35mm. Also keep in mind photography was originally large format, and 35mm was only invented for portability. It's like CD and MP3, no one listens to CDs anymore, but quality remains on the CD side.

Good luck getting those results with a digital camera, and it sucks you can't see the large prints, the tones, dynamic range, definition.

 Courtesy of Pierre Herbert, Rest in Peace.

Now remember, I made the assumption you are a photography junky, you love the cause, you'd sell your PS3 to replace a lens. If you don't have that level of dedication, forget about film. You'll always be a 30% photographer then :p, covering 30% of the potential. Mwaaahahaha! I'm mean...and stupid because if you all shoot just digital, I'll be the only pulling amazing portraits. The fact is the real thing is medium and large format film.


What what? but my friends have a 5D MKII and I'm enviouuuus! With the biiig lenses they look soooo seriouuuus and proooo !

Ah...well, sorry you have to compensate for something, but this is about the images, not the how the gear looks on you. Anyway, you look way cooler with a vintage piece of gear than with a 5D.

On the left corner, weighting 3000 to 4000$:

• A great full frame DSLR, the Nikon D700 or soon to come out D800. A D700 now costs 2500$. 
• Prime lenses that matches your expectations of greatness would be the 35mm f2 and the 85mm f1.4 . That costs from 400$ to 900$.
• Or a zoom lens for full frame, matching the D700 quality standards like the 24-70 F2.8, 1500$, for a result that is quite questionable regarding the money.

On the right corner, weighting 3000$:

• Let's go for the top, to mach the other corner, a Pentax 67II, used in mint condition from Adorama or B&H for 1200$
• 2 lenses, a portrait lens, a landscape lens, used from the same shops, 500$ each. Those will DESTROY the best SLR Nikon lenses. I mean destroy even the prime lenses. The zoom lenses, ah ah please, be serious for a sec, it beats even the best Leica M lenses. My Mamiya 200$ lenses already outperform all of that.
• A negative scanner. Yes you'll need that, the Epson Perfection V700 does a great job for 550$.
• Film. A roll developed costs about 8$ if the shop doesn't rip you off. You get 10 shots on it.

You can also read my more complete post on what you need to start shooting film.

So here it is. The second choice is the one that is not guided by marketing or the safe feeling of buying the same as everyone else. It's the choice of passion. I won't even write a rational, just Google sample images.
Yes, you'll have to wait to see your picture, and learn how to expose properly, and the characteristics of each film, and focus manually, but it'll pay off. The shutter sound of a MF camera...oh yeah. You'll be thinking every shot, framing carefully, turn into a perfectionist machine to maximize your ratio of good shots. You'll find the pleasure of crafting, then be impatient to see the film developed. Instead of bombarding a village to hit one man, you'll be the sniper that needs one bullet to hit his target.
The truth is, if you go medium format film for portraits, you won't be able to go back to digital, this I can promise you.

My DSLR lens guide

Most of us make poor choices when it comes to picking our first lenses. We are new to photography and think the camera body does it all. We believe the bigger the zoom the better the lens, we have no idea what those "f" numbers mean after the focal lens (ie 50mmf1.8)...

We end up buying a kit lens, or a big cheap zoom and we think "what a deal!" Well if you did so, you probably got ripped off.

So how to choose a lens? Well you have to look at the following:

• focal length
• aperture
• extra feature : price of filters, warrantee etc.

Let's start with nomenclature. What does 16-55mm F4-5.6 means for example?

• First the focal length. 16-55mm mean than the lens is a zoom going from wide angle focal length (16mm) to a street life / portrait focal length (55mm).
• F4-5.6 is the aperture, i.e. how much light can the lens let go thru onto the sensor.

1 /First choose the focal lens

...based on what you'll be shooting. Remember: a lens that does everything great does not exists. It simply doesn't, pick your fights :)

- You shoot landscapes and architecture: take a lens between 14 to 35mm: it's a wide angle. You will have way to much distortion for portraits, but it'll allow capturing most of your view field.

- You shoot life scene, candid, mixing street photography and portraits. Typical documentary style. Choose from 35mm to 50mm lenses: those are general focal lengths. Most journalists in the 60ies had only a fix 35mm or 50mm since it is small, light, and can do all. I'd recommend a fix 35mm on a DX camera as a first lens for a beginner into more arty photography.

- You shoot portrait, choose from 50mm to 135mm lenses. They allow you to detach the subject by having him very sharp, and background very blurry.

- Everything beyond 135mm is a telelens, for wildlife, paparazzi and anything that takes zooming. If cheap, it's probably crap. Those are usually not very light sensitive, and if they are they cost a fortune. I don't see the use for it appart for wildlife.

- Last but not least, the greater the zoom range, the lower the quality; so avoid 18-300mm lenses.

One question comes along quite often:

"if I have the budget, should I get 2 prime lenses, 24mm for landscape and 85mm for portrait, or one 24-85mm lens?"

- Well it very much depends on what you value most: convenience, or image quality. If you travel and care about not having to change lenses all the time, go for the zoom. But in order to compare to prime lens quality, you'll need a top one, usually costing more that $ 1000.

If you value image quality, don't care much about transport or have 2 camera bodies, go for the prime lenses. Less flexibility, but better images, and the sum of the two might still beat the zoom lens.

Wide angles are ideal for landscape and architecture.

2/ Now choose the aperture

The "f" thing is the maximum aperture of the lens. See the iris thing in Stargate? Well lenses have such a thing inside that opens when you shoot to let the light in, and onto the film or sensor.

The wider it opens (low f numbers), the more light can get it, the more sensitive (we also call it fast) the lens is. Fast lenses cost more of course, but they allow great stuff such has very little depth of field (distance on which things are on focus) or low light photography.

An f1.8 lens is very sensitive. Less is very very sensitive and usually expensive.

Prime lenses (no zoom) can easily be f1.8 or F1.4, when the priciest zooms are f2.8 at best. Zooms are less light sensitive due to mechanical constraints.

Also take into account the camera body you have: if you have a top of the range leica or nikon, allowing shooting at 1600 or 3200 without quality drops, you might be ok with a f3.5 lens. Otherwise, I strongly advice you spend extra bucks on an F2.8 lens at least. You won't regret it and won't have to upgrade one year later.

An example of short depth of field with a fast lens, notice that the image is on focus on 15 cm, creating a 3D feeling.

3/ Extra features

Stabilization: useful for low aperture lenses. Since you can't shoot at high shutter speeds, you are likely to get some blur from shaking. This can then be a nice feature. On a high ISO performance camera, you can shoot fast, you don't need it

Lens diameter : the larger the lens, the more expensive the filters. If you're tight on budget, avoid 72 mm large (diameter of the lens) since the filters will cost $50 each instead of $15 for a smaller lens.

You now have the tools to decide. No lens can be perfect for every purpose. I will insist once again on this : the lens makes the quality, not the camera. Unlike the camera bodies that will keep improving a lot, lenses won't. Spend the money on the lens !

photozone.de is good advice when it comes to chosing lenses.

What DSLR to buy in December 2011 ?

Aaah Christmas, and with Christmas comes presents from your family or, from yourself but you just needed a reason to remove that guilty feeling when buying a new camera :)

Anyway, you made up your mind: you will get your first or upgrade your DSLR camera. The good thing is, you have plenty of choice, the bad thing is, you want to make sure you will spend those hundred or thousands of dollars wisely. Here is a guide to choice a DSLR, and my advice for this 2011 winter.

• Step 1: Canon or Nikon ??? Of course there are other DSLR brands like Sony, Pentax, doing a good job too, but I will exclude them for one simple reason : poor lens choice. So here we are, Canon or Nikon? This is a never ending debate and fanboys from both sides will counter argue forever, but well, there is some good advice I can give you.

RULE NUMBER 1 : THE LENS MAKES THE IMAGE QUALITY, NOT THE CAMERA BODY. Therefore pick the lense you like best, according to your photographic preferences (see my guide for lens picking here). Then pick the camera accordingly. Canon or Nikon, whatever you take, will both be good choices if you have the right lenses.

I however will share my bias toward Nikon, for reasons that I believe are quite objective:

-Better built quality, just handle a Nikon D700 next to a 5D mk II, it speaks for itself

-Nikon customer service is known to be the top.

-Nikon rules the world of high sensitivity sensors, the new D7000, a $ 1200 body, destroys everything that exist in the high ISO range. They just know how to do it better, and keep improving fast.

-Metering (what measures exposure and light in your camera) from Nikon is far ahead. 2000 RGB sensors in the finder when Canon still uses B&W sensors. This is since the old F5...a long time without improvement from Canon.

-Quality prime lenses in an affordable price range are more numerous at Nikon (35f2, 85mm f1.8). Canon primes are excellent too, but pricier.

Once again, Canons are good camera (got a S90 for my mum this Christmas, don't tell her yet), and you are the one to make the good pictures, not your camera. But if I had to chose, I'd go Nikon.

• Step 2: entry level, middle range or full frame DSLR?

This of course highly depends on your revenue. So I'll assume you can stretch up to the top if you have a good rational, but still are under money constraint.

I would avoid entry level for one reason: they don't have the built in motor to use autofocus on many prime lenses. Basically you try your new 50mm f1.8 and...no AF. That sucks. Also the few extra hundreds in this part of the range will give you great improvements, which is not the case in the highest prices tags (a $ 1200 D7000 is 95% as good as a $ 7000 D3X).

Top of the range FX (full frame, meaning that the sensor is the size of 35 mm film, 24x36) are if you are rich, or a pro, or a landscape lover. Otherwise they won't make any difference compared to a mid range DSLR in terms of picture quality. They have one fine characteristic however, that is no crop factor. A DX (non full frame, pretty much all DSLRs) has a sensor smaller than 24x36, so the image is cropped. With a 50mm lens, you in fact have a 85mm since it fakes the effect of a zoom. It's annoying for landscapes and wide angle users would might want to go full frame.

Mid range cameras such as Canon 550D & 7D or Nikon D90, and D7000 would have my preference. They are all good, but the D90 is getting a bit old. You have Canon lenses, go 550D. Cheaper than the 7D and I don't see much reasons to get the 7D.

You don't have Canon lenses? My choice among all of DSLR would be this: Nikon D7000 16.2MP DX-Format CMOS Digital SLR with 3.0-Inch LCD (Body Only). Why?

• best metering system, AF and sensor that exist in this format in the world (so pretty much all the main features of a camera)
• is 95% as good as the terrific $7000 D3X for $1200, and smaller / lighter.
• is Nikon.

I totally share Ken Rockwell's opinion on the D7000. The Nikon D700 FX is bloody fantastic already, and performs better in color noise, but the difference in price tag make the D7000 a better camera for the money. At the same time, D700 prices are dropping lately...

My dream pack for Christmas : D7000 + 35mmF2 for artists, D7000 + 16-85mm for the rest. With the light sensitivity you get on this body, no need for super large apertures.