Any photographers in the house?

Kit lens shoots f/5.6 at 50 mm. Moving to f/1.8 will net you roughly 4x the shutter speed, whereas f/1.4 might get you 4.5x. For the difference in price, its very fast, and the quality of optics is compared to some of the sharpest non-prime L glass.

Double check my math, I'm new to all this as well (just got a T1i for my birthday in September).

Also take a look here, you can find actual results from both lenses.

Got into photography about 3 years back through a chance encounter with a bunch of folks from Flickr and have been surprised by how much I liked it. Haven't shot very much over the last 18 months or so though

I mostly shot with a crappy little Point-n-Shoot, although some of the photos I managed to pull off with that camera really taught me that "it's not the camera, it's the person behind the camera that makes the difference". Finally upgraded to a D40 this year (Amazon had a great offer - almost as cheap as a PnS!). Lens-wise, I have a Kit lens and a borrowed 50/f1.8 (manual focus only..). Invested in a CPL and an ND4 filter as well.

Not surprisingly, all my photos are on Flickr and here's a bunch of the better ones

For Workflow, I started off using Photoshop and Iview Media. Over time, my philosophy for photo-editing has become "the less, the better" and now I'm very happy with Lightroom.

Going from F 5.6 to F 1.8 is actually 3 "stops" (5.6->4->2.8->2 which is basically 1.8) and each stop doubles the shutter speed you get.

So that's 8x faster. So, if you were at 1/30th at 5.6, you'd be at 1/60->1/125->1/250th at F1.8.

It's confusing because the F-stops go down by the square root of 2 each step whereas the shutter speeds go linearly.

I have dabbled with photos for a long time and even did some time in the darkroom in the pre-digital days. I don't have too much to say, except that the Nikon D700 is the most amazing machine I have ever used. A bit too big though.

If I had one piece of advice it would be this: if you really want to learn how photography works, buy an SLR and *one* lens that has a single focal length (for the 35mm format, I like a 35mm or 50mm lens). Use that one lens for a year until you can see the picture the lens would take in your head before you even pick up the camera. Then branch out.

It's too bad they don't sell SLRs with a single lens bolted on to them that you can't remove for a year.

Edwin wrote:

The 1.4 has a bigger aperture to deal with lower light situation. Yes you lose some depth of field, but I thought 1.8 doesn't really work well for low light?

You'll generally be fine with the 1.8. With a 1.4 and tripod you can take pictures in candlelight and some of them will come out. The depth of field gets obnoxiously short too. I have portrait shots of my kids where one eye is in hard focus and the other is much softer. We're not talking much DOF there.

Most of my favorite shots with my 1.4 are taken at much higher stops (e.g. 8-12). It's just really nice glass. The 1.8 is too. I wish I had a FX sensor body so that I wouldn't get the tele effect and cropping. As a general rule (read - don't hold me to it) inexpensive primes are much nicer glass than inexpensive zooms.

I was given a Nikon Coolpix P90 for Christmas. I was thinking about exchanging it for the Nikon D3000 camera, I have no experience being a photographer but I want to start to learn to take better pictures. Given that I'm back in San Francisco, there are so many great areas that I would love to take pictures at. Are there any tips to help me to get started taking better photos? Everything I've taken now has just been standard point/shoot and nothing looks that nice. But, I see a lot of photos that you guys have taken and they look way better than what I do. Are you guys using software after the shot has been taken to clean them up?

Thanks for the clarification about the 1.8 vs. 1.4. I'll just go ahead with the 1.8 when I can swing it one day.

Ulairi wrote:

I was given a Nikon Coolpix P90 for Christmas. I was thinking about exchanging it for the Nikon D3000 camera, I have no experience being a photographer but I want to start to learn to take better pictures. Given that I'm back in San Francisco, there are so many great areas that I would love to take pictures at. Are there any tips to help me to get started taking better photos? Everything I've taken now has just been standard point/shoot and nothing looks that nice. But, I see a lot of photos that you guys have taken and they look way better than what I do. Are you guys using software after the shot has been taken to clean them up?

I was using a Nikon PnS for a long time and from experience, these cameras will yield reasonable results if you spend some time to understand what they can & cannot do. Briefly, here are some suggestions:

1. Get off the Program Auto mode and start using the Aperture priority mode. Understand what DoF does for a photo. Remember "f/8 and be there!". Also, I recommend this book.

2. If you are using Program Auto, turn on Best Shot Selector. Then take one shot and immediately take another. You will find the 2nd shot is much more pleasing as the Nikon engine "learns" what works for that shot.

3. The "scene" modes are not very useful - However, you can coax some interesting results out of the Landscape or Night modes when shooting Dawn/Dusk landscapes.

4. The small sensor means that night shots are going to be noisy. Nothing you can do about it in camera.

Re: post-shot Software - I use Lightroom almost exclusively nowadays. For noise reduction, I use Noise Ninja now, Neat Image before that. And of course, Photoshop for those days when I'm feeling fancy[i]

UlairiGiven wrote:

that I'm back in San Francisco, there are so many great areas that I would love to take pictures at. Are there any tips to help me to get started taking better photos? Everything I've taken now has just been standard point/shoot and nothing looks that nice. But, I see a lot of photos that you guys have taken and they look way better than what I do.

Go take a class. I took one at The Academy of Art in San Francisco and it was excellent. Introduction to Digital Photography. 3 hrs a week for 15 weeks.

Ulairi wrote:

I was given a Nikon Coolpix P90 for Christmas. I was thinking about exchanging it for the Nikon D3000 camera, I have no experience being a photographer but I want to start to learn to take better pictures.

Might be worth an exchange to go to the DSLR if you're already going to carry a camera that size. I would say improving the pictures you take is first a matter of learning why your current pictures don't look right. What's wrong with them?

I don't see a listing for a prime lens here. Is it called something else?

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...

Edwin wrote:

I still haven't made up my mind between Cannon and Nikon.

LilCodger wrote:

I think wars have been fought over that choice.

Indeed. If you think XBox/Sony/Nintendo fanboyism is bad, you haven't seen anything until you see the Canon/Nikon wars. They both make excellent cameras; go to a store, play with both and get whichever one feels more natural for you to use. You want to be able to focus on the shot, not worry about the camera.

Edwin wrote:

I don't see a listing for a prime lens here. Is it called something else?

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...

It just means "non-zoom". On that page, I'd be referring mainly to "Standard & Medium Telephoto".

I went to the local camera shop in my parents' town looking for a fast 50 (f/1.7 or 1.4) and walked out with a 28mm f/2.8. It's not as fast and a bit wider than what I was looking for in a 50mm, but it was a good deal for $100 and it has received good reviews. By the way, I shoot Pentax so I'm cooler than all of you

Not sure exactly what I was going to get in low-light situation, here are some shots I took in the late-evening/night with available light only. I had to bump up the ISO a little bit (induced a bit of noise), but I think they are still decent. The 2.8 is now my fastest lens and I'm pleased with it. I will most likely still get a nifty fifty at some point. I can only imagine what a f/1.4-1.7 can do.

f/2.8. 1/6. ISO1600. (a little bit of blown-out highlight in the snow pile in front)IMAGE(http://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/21731/large/1_Bldg.jpg)
f/2.8. 1/13. ISO 800. Back door. IMAGE(http://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/21731/large/1_Back.jpg)

That's not bad. My mom only has one lens right now and it's a EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It's kind of hard to do anything low light without a tripod or some sort of lighting equipment.

Edwin wrote:

That's not bad. My mom only has one lens right now and it's a EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It's kind of hard to do anything low light without a tripod or some sort of lighting equipment.

A fast speed lens is not a replacement for a tripod. Reducing your depth of field beyond the appropriate limits of your subject matter makes for a bad picture. Absolutely everyone should at least learn on a fully manual camera even if they never decide to take another shot from one ever again. Doing so really teaches you the science of light.

As Paleo said, you will still need a tripod. Different function.

What my 1.4 does for me is let me take snaps of my kids at indoor events and such where I can't set up, and don't really want to use a flash. For example, delivery room pictures when my son was born. Took a few pics with flash to make sure they come out, but a lot without so as not to wake/agitate the very tired little boy. The caveat is when I dump the card into Lightroom task #1 is to go through and toss 3/4 of the pics. I do this because it's my kids, and they don't sit still while I line up my shots.

If you want to take *good* pictures, you'll want a tripod and/or lighting.

Edwin wrote:

That's not bad. My mom only has one lens right now and it's a EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It's kind of hard to do anything low light without a tripod or some sort of lighting equipment.

What you get with a faster lens is the ability to use a faster shutter speed in low light. If you want to take a picture of a still subject, the IS will allow you to lower the shutter speed down to 1/30 or 1/15 without too much blur on stationary objects from camera shake. Tripod would allow you to go even further. But anything moving around in the frame will be blurred (and sometimes this is an effect photographers want- one still, clear subject in the foreground, with people moving behind or around them slightly blurry, for example).

So if you get the faster 50mm, shooting at 1.8 will allow you to go up to 1/60 or so, with the side effect of lower depth of field than you'd have at F3.5.

I'm still going old school with my Canon F1 and fixed focal length FL lenses. I hand meter everything, use the heaviest most stable Gitzo tripod I could find, and shoot the dark and fill with a bracketed Metz flash.

My wife thinks I'm a dinosaur, but grudgingly admits I shoot much better than she does. She complains that film processing costs so much and is such a hassle, but I remind her that I rarely take junk shots because I know how to shoot and what I'm shooting.

Everyone has a favorite method, and that's the one they should use.

I like film photography because I grew up with it, but at this stage I don't think it matters which format is being used outside some specialized applications. I was listening to NPR a while back and heard a story from this Nat Geo photographer. If she can take beautiful travel images with digital equipment, I suppose anyone could.

Funkenpants wrote:

Everyone has a favorite method, and that's the one they should use.

I like film photography because I grew up with it, but at this stage I don't think it matters which format is being used outside some specialized applications. I was listening to NPR a while back and heard a story from this Nat Geo photographer. If she can take beautiful travel images with digital equipment, I suppose anyone could.

It's nearly impossible to make a living as a professional photographer without going digital. The speed with which you can get your shot images, the ease of travel with digital, and the ability to shoot with multiple speeds of "film" with a single body are all significant advantages. Some would argue that film still provides a superior image (much like many will claim vinyl provides better sound than digital), but the differences are in margins that don't really matter to the average viewer. There are differences and I can go into them if you want, but like I said, they mostly don't matter to most folks.

If I were starting all over from scratch today, I'd start with digital. It's cheaper and easier. The principle drawback is that it is too easy to muddle by without actually understanding what you're doing. I would say that 99.99% of folks I've seen shooting with $900 DSLR's could have taken every shot they've ever taken just as well and just as easily with a $200 P&S precisely because they don't know enough to utilize the advantages of an SLR in any meaningful way.

Paleocon wrote:

I would say that 99.99% of folks I've seen shooting with $900 DSLR's could have taken every shot they've ever taken just as well and just as easily with a $200 P&S precisely because they don't know enough to utilize the advantages of an SLR in any meaningful way.

I agree with your analysis. Many photographers buy SLRs and use the auto settings because they don't want to learn about photography. In fact, that's how manufacturers sell the cameras. "You can get some nice photos on the automatic settings and dump the rest," say Nikon and Canon. This is enough for many people.

For the pro and hobbyist, even the choice between SLR and P&S will depend on the photographer's method. I once came across this photojournalist who was choosing to shoot with P&S cameras because he liked their advantages in the type of work he does. I love this picture from the Iraq invasion, for example:

IMAGE(http://www.robgalbraith.com/data/1/rec_imgs/742_majoli_05.jpg)

What I'm getting at is that when you find what kind of images you like to make, you go looking for a camera that enables you to make those images. If you're doing street photography, you go out looking for something that focuses fast, is portable, and works well in available light. If want to make huge landscape photos, you go out and get a large format camera. I think this is just a natural part of the process of learning about photography. You look at your photos and ask why they don't look like what you wanted. Then you figure out if it's a gear issue, or the wrong settings, or just a lack of an ability to visualize. I don't think there's even one method by which every great photographer learned his or her skills beyond curiosity and a desire to make a better image.

Very fair assessment. Use the tool that works.

I think folks tend to fixate on SLR's because they are expensive and full of features. That was true even in the days of film. Folks fail to realize that many of the finest images I've ever seen were taken with fixed focal length viewfinders. The Leica M3 was, perhaps the finest opera/museum camera ever made. Many modern P&S's follow very closely in those footsteps.

I also question the fixation folks have on bigger glass. Most of my good shots were taken with three lenses: 24, 55, 100. If I needed a better shot, I got closer. Feet make amazingly effective zoom lenses.

Leica's have a legendary reputation, particularly among street shooters. Unfortunately I will never own one because I am too cheap.

I think the fascination for big glass for non-photographers is based purely on how cool they look. I agree that using feet is a lot easier than carrying around a big piece of glass.

The only time I can say I I need one is when I'm shooting sports outdoors. I suppose wildlife photographers need them, too. Celebrity photographers and some fashion folks. Anything where you can't walk up to the subject. I'd like one of those 400mm F2.8 lenses with the shallow depth of field that isolates the subject, but I can't justify $2,000+ for a lens to shoot my son's soccer games.

I guess my thing is that I have the depths of field memorized for three pieces of glass (f8-16 is about the limits of portraiture for me using my 100). Going with a zoom would give me the ability to crop shots on the fly, but would really screw with my ability to properly compose shots in my head when I shoot. The foot method allows me to keep the depth of field I want, properly compose a picture, and shoot using either available light or screw around with fill and flash. Automagics can do some impressive stuff nowadays, but they can't read your mind when it comes to how you want that shot taken. All it can do is either average out to the common denominator or try to outsmart you if you're not aware of what you're shooting to begin with.

I used to be part of a shutterbug club where we'd bring in our best 10 shots and vigorously critique them. The rules were that they needed to be presented as 8x10's of the chosen genre. I loved portrait and candid. I hated studio and sports. It wasn't at all cheap, but if you got good at taking the right shots, it didn't drive you to the poor house either. Most of the regulars would go over the shots with loups to check point of focus, depth of field, and the like. The single most common error, however, was subject matter failure. You'd be surprised how often folks would bring in what they thought were "good" shots with crap growing out of the tops of people's heads.

It could get pretty discouraging to get your "prized pic" back with sharpie marks all over it showing where you fcked up.

Edwin wrote:

Thanks for the clarification about the 1.8 vs. 1.4. I'll just go ahead with the 1.8 when I can swing it one day.

The only other issue to consider is that the 1.8 lenses tend to be pretty cheaply made, with plastic mounts and noisier and slower autofocusing motors. I got a 50/1.8 for my Canon 10D, and its a great lens overall, and a great value, but it does feel kind of flimsy. And there may be some issues with focusing. I tend to shoot wide open (low light, high ISO), so the depth of field is really shallow. In close up portraits, even when I have the center focus point selected and I focus on the eyes, it sometimes seems the focus is a half cm or so behind the eyes, so it ends up being a bit soft. It might be an issue with the cameras focusing or it just might be that lenses are generally not the sharpest wide open.

So if you have the money, go with the 1.4 for build quality. Or maybe the 50mm macro version. You could also consider 3rd party primes like sigma or tamron. resell value's not great, but I've read they can be pretty good quality.

Ulairi wrote:

I was given a Nikon Coolpix P90 for Christmas. I was thinking about exchanging it for the Nikon D3000 camera, I have no experience being a photographer but I want to start to learn to take better pictures. Given that I'm back in San Francisco, there are so many great areas that I would love to take pictures at. Are there any tips to help me to get started taking better photos? Everything I've taken now has just been standard point/shoot and nothing looks that nice. But, I see a lot of photos that you guys have taken and they look way better than what I do. Are you guys using software after the shot has been taken to clean them up?

I haven't replied because I've been looking for this site since your post. This is what I read to learn about the camera. Maybe it'll be just as good for you.

Here's a serious question. Why do Digital SLR's even bother to have a viewfinder anymore?

Paleocon wrote:

Here's a serious question. Why do Digital SLR's even bother to have a viewfinder anymore?

Because that's kind of the whole point of an SLR. You're looking through the lens. The screen is only there for review.

The screen on the P&S models is essentially passing on a video feed of what the lens is seeing, which is a big part of why the shutter lag is atrocious.

LilCodger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Here's a serious question. Why do Digital SLR's even bother to have a viewfinder anymore?

Because that's kind of the whole point of an SLR. You're looking through the lens. The screen is only there for review.

The screen on the P&S models is essentially passing on a video feed of what the lens is seeing, which is a big part of why the shutter lag is atrocious.

My point is that the market for these cameras is really for a casual shooter. Very few people I know that have these rarely if ever use the physical viewfinder to shoot. Heck, even fewer ever utilize manual focusing.

I promise to get off my old guy box after this, but I found it incredibly disappointing that that Canon site Edwin posted had 5 pages and several subpages of information, but focusing, film speed, aperature, exposure, and composition were all buried in the one page "advanced" section. This tells me that their market is really just a point and shoot market that wants to look serious.

There are issues with making "live view" cameras work well.

1. You need a sensor that can feed the live video view at a fast frame rate. SLR sensors are not built to do this, with a few exceptions.

2. The phase detection AF that most modern DSLRs use depends on there being a viewing system that is supported by a beam splitter in the SLR mirror, which in turn feeds the optical viewfinder. Live view tends to disable these AF sensors so you need to either hack something together or use contrast based AF, which is slower than phase detection, with a few exceptions.

3. Electronic viewfinders are not as good as optical ones yet. This will change.

4. Keeping the sensor live all the time has implications for performance, protection, and other things.

I think all these add up, for now, to there being optical viewing systems in SLRs.

The m-4/3rds cameras are the main exception to this right now. But they are pretty nichey, and have limited lens lines and accessories.

As for catering to a "serious" audience. The audience that is serious about learning actual technique, as opposed to letting the camera to a lot of heavy lifting is fairly small. And, even if you aren't in manual mode all the time, the SLR has performance advantages over a point and shoot which can make it worthwhile even if you are not "serious."

I know I use mine in P most of the time. As long as its doing the right thing.