Photography Question

[Shadow21Participant 22]

Hi

I was wondering if any of you guys were into photography. I am looking at getting my first DSLR upgrading from a bridge camera. I take pictures of landscapes and moving vehicles. I was looking at getting either a used Nikon 5300, Nikon 3300, or Canon T5i. Any suggestions?

The worlds a subway

[WallyParticipant]

Any of those cameras will be fine, lenses are more important, I would start with a 50 mm and build up from there.

"what a waste of a life, to marry, give up your freedom, just for the hope of not dying alone. Don't get married Son."

[Solo MAN’S WisdomParticipant]

Yeah. What Wally said. Those two brands are the industry standards, and both have a boat load of lenses [name brand and after market available]. The Nikon lenses tend to be a bit more expensive.
Make sure either camera body you choose will take 1080p video as well.

When women lead, destruction is the destination. -- Me.

[sidecarParticipant 35862]

Wally wrote:

lenses are more important, I would start with a 50 mm and build up from there.

^this.

The whole point of an SLR is you’re not limited to a single lens. So the lens and also the camera mount become a lot more important. A giant telephoto lens isn’t much use without a really steady tripod. Eventually the camera body itself just becomes the thing you attach to the back of the lens and tripod.

Solo MAN’S Wisdom wrote:

Make sure either camera body you choose will take 1080p video as well.

4K is becoming the new standard there, even if it isn’t actually 4K, so 1080p should be easy to manage. Also framerate is just as important as resolution. 1080p15 may have the resolution, but it still looks like s~~~. Don’t settle for anything less than 1080p30. I think the T5i can handle that. I don’t know about the Nikons.

[Anonymous 42]

What sidecar said, my nighttime photos are impossible without a tripod and remote control shutter, clear clean sharp images, can’t shoot in the dark without them.

[LosPukeParticipant 514]

As others have said, lenses are what you should focus on. As you develop into a seasoned photographer, you will care less about all of the bells and whistles on the latest and greatest DSLR, and more about composition, lighting, exposure, and depth of field.

In addition to the camera, I would highly recommend that you invest some quality time in learning about how changing ISO settings, f/stops, and shutter speeds will affect your image. If you’re talking about shooting moving vehicles, you had better be familiar with how those different settings can make or break an image. Otherwise, you’ll likely be looking at images with motion blur from having too slow of a shutter speed and not a high enough ISO.

Another important factor is COST! A lot of beginners don’t know the difference between lenses that have the same focal length and the cost difference. As an example, you can buy a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM lens for $1,199.00. If that was expensive, you could get the Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens for $9,999.00! The key number in that lens model designation is the f/5.6 or f/2.8. Without going too technical, it simply means that the f/2.8 lens will allow 2 full f/stops more of light into the lens than the f/5.6 lens. That $8,800 difference between the lenses is worth it if you’re photographing moving vehicles, low light conditions, or simply don’t want to use flash. There are no bells and whistles on the more expensive lens. It is just a much larger piece of glass on the front of it.

I would also agree with the others in getting a solid tripod and a remote shutter release. You mentioned landscape photography. Instead of opening the aperture of the lens wide open f/2.8 (as in shooting moving vehicles), you’ll be closing it down to f/22 to get the greatest depth of field. By closing the aperture down, you’ll increase the shutter time needed to get a proper exposure. If you’re not shooting off a tripod…motion blur.

As with any other hobby/profession, you can spend as much money as you like in photography. I’ve had friends in the industry use Hasselblad medium format cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars. They thought they could just throw money at the problem of being an average photographer. That doesn’t work any better than believing that buying top grade kitchenware makes you a chef. It just makes you frustrated and broke.

The most important piece of equipment in photography is located between your ears. The best part is that it is free. I can take an old school Nikon F2 film camera and make better images with it than most can with the new Nikon D5 DSLR. To make that egotistical claim, I’ve attended dozens of classes, seminars, and conventions on photography. I can’t tell you how many rolls of film I’ve thrown away without processing after discovering I didn’t have the camera or strobes set right.

That sets up my final thought. Film. I had no idea when I began photography that I would build the foundation of my understanding of exposure by mastering film. The advantage I have over the budding photographers of today is my experience in calculating exposure by using film. Back in the day, it cost MONEY to take pictures. It took TIME to see the results of a shoot. It wasn’t instant like digital. It wasn’t free like digital. My accountant and I figured that each time I pressed the shutter, it was like pulling a dollar from my wallet. The lab took 1-2 days to get your prints back to you. Of course, I’m speaking of a professional lab, not the drugstore lab with 1 hour photos.

It is awfully tempting to not bother with learning the fundamentals with all of the latest bells and whistles on today’s cameras. You will only cheat yourself by taking shortcuts. For me, I had a notebook that I wrote each frame # and exposure setting down. When I got the prints back, I had visual evidence of my application of exposure and depth of field. I learned. I improved.

Shadow21, I hope I haven’t discouraged you. When I was at your stage, I had no idea how hard the photography bug would bite. I had no idea of how deep the rabbit hole goes. You can spend as much time learning as you can spend money at the camera store. You will be surprised how many doors will open to you once you become proficient.

[Shadow21Participant 22]

Shadow21, I hope I haven’t discouraged you

No not at all, this is the type of info that I was looking for. Part of the reason that I am looking to upgrade is because on my current point and shoot I have no control over the shutter speed. This makes catching a fast moving object like a plane or a train impossible. The only way I have to force the shutter speed to go up is to raise the ISO, which resulted in a grainy image. I feel as though I have hit the skill ceiling and need to upgrade to have more control manually instead of trying to trick the camera into doing what I want it to do. As for lenses is there any difference in a 50mm lens made today verse on that was made a decade ago? Thank you everyone for your through and well thought out responses

The worlds a subway

[LosPukeParticipant 514]

Shadow21,

I’ve been out of the business for a while now. The information I give you may not be the most current or best information available. Nonetheless, I’m happy to share my experience. It is hard for me not to write a wall of text and I don’t want to sound like a know-it-all. I’m still a student at this after 20 years of doing it. But I’ll try answering the 50mm lens question you have.

The only difference I can think of in differences in lenses today over lenses from 10 years ago would be the quickness that the camera focus the lens. Bear in mind that my experience is in medium format portrait and wedding photography. My equipment was all manual. From the lenses, to the film advance, to having an prism without a meter, the only thing that the battery powered was the shutter release.

Every now and then I played with my old Nikon 90S at Texas Motor Speedway just to see if I could stop the Indy cars at full speed enough to read the writing of the tire’s sidewalls. It’s pretty hard to pan the camera as the cars go by at 190 mph. You end up with a lot of frames with half a race car.

I understand that the dedicated Nikon lenses focus significantly faster than the “off-brand” ones mounted to a Nikon body. I would assume the same thing applies to Canon. Tamron and Sigma make fine lenses, but they don’t communicate as quickly with the camera body as the native Nikon lenses do.

The main thing I would stress on that 50mm lens would be to get the largest aperture lens you can afford. That one f/stop difference between f/4 and f/2.8 doesn’t sound like a lot. But you will appreciate it when you need it. Otherwise, you’ll be doing the same thing that you’re doing now with your point and shoot. Trying to overcompensate by raising the iso results in grainy pictures.

It looks as if you are familiar with some of the fundamentals, Shadow21. I want to share my experience with auto-focus vs. manual focus. Auto-focus has ALWAYS disappointed me. Whether shooting an approaching bride coming down the aisle in a dimly lit cathedral, or an approaching race car coming out of turn 4, auto-focus has a bitch of a time locking onto and STAYING locked onto your subject. It really p~~~es you off to watch whatever is in your viewfinder go from one focus extreme to another without stopping. Perhaps things are different with the new Nikon D5 and Canon EOS-1D these days, but I would be surprised.

For me, I learned about pre-focusing, minimum and maximum focus distance as it relates to depth of field. I don’t know if that makes sense to you or not. For example, a bride approaches from the rear of the church to the alter. Her speed is rather slow. I might “practice-focus” on a pew that is 20 feet in front of me and lock on that. By the time she reaches that area, I’m already focused at that distance and I just time it right. The flower girl or ring bearer that comes next might be a 3 year old running at full speed towards the altar. I wait until he or she enters the same area and we’re good. It’s just like a sniper that is waiting for the target to walk into the scope’s field of view. One shot, one kill. The speed of their approach doesn’t matter. Depending on the f/stop, the range of focus might be that the kid is in focus a few feet either way of what you’re focused on.

Hopefully, I didn’t confuse you. I’m much better at “doing” photography than instructing about it. Have fun with it!

[MeisterParticipant 2093]

I own a D610 and a D5300.

The difference in iq between the two really surprised me.

Since you are doing landscapes you can keep the iso low and the D5300 should be fine.

For a lens I’d get the 50mm 1.8g.
Great all around lens for a low price.

I’d stay away from Canon because their dr is inferior to Nikon.

Monk

[sidecarParticipant 35862]

LosPuke wrote:

There are no bells and whistles on the more expensive lens. It is just a much larger piece of glass on the front of it.

^this.

Light will always behave like light. No amount of digital processing or other electronic tomfoolery will ever be able to compare to good optics. Or compensate for bad optics. And in optics, geometry is everything. In other words, size really does matter. The larger your objective, the bigger your aperture, the more light you let in for the camera body to work with and the fewer distortions you get.

Shadow21 wrote:

As for lenses is there any difference in a 50mm lens made today verse on that was made a decade ago?

In shape and size and general function? Not really. Because light today acts just like light did back then and 50mm is still 50mm. However there have been some improvements in materials so that more recent lenses can be lighter, more robust, harder, less reflective, more scratch resistant, occasionally even cheaper (when bought new). That sort of thing. All things being equal, you probably won’t get massively better pictures unless you’re really hard core, but your lenses might have a slightly better chance of, for instance, surviving being dropped etc. (not that I recommend doing that)

Then again, used lenses can sometimes be cheap enough that you can afford the occasional accident and still save money compared to paying full retail price. It depends on the specific lens.

Also the motors in modern lenses are generally smaller, faster, and more efficient. But that’s more a matter of convenience and ease of use and battery savings than picture quality.

[Author]

Posts