Showing posts with label DSLR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DSLR. Show all posts

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.





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.


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.