I've searched this site and read up a bit elsewhere, but wondering what people thought of the compact interchangeable lens cameras.

Borrowed my mom's older Nikon D40 for vacation and really liked the pictures more than a point and shoot (obviously). I would like to get something that is easy to use and gives great autofocus pictures but also gives me room to grow and learn more about shutter speed, aperture, focus, etc. Plan to slowly learn about photography and post-processing in photoshop, etc.

Was thinking of getting a Sony NEX-5n. Anyone have experience with this? Would I be better off getting like a Pentax K-r or Nikon 5100 or other standard entry level DSLR?

Generally, interchangeable-lens non-DSLR cameras occupy a middle ground between compact point-and-shoot cameras and DSLRs. You get no more than what you pay for. The biggest drawbacks of cameras such as this Sony, relative to a DSLR, are a limited selection of available lenses, less control over depth of field, less in-camera intelligence, and resultant less creative control. Their main advantages are they are cheaper, smaller and lighter. If you are never going to buy more than two or three lenses, and depth of field of closeups, low-light performance and detail of distant subjects is not important to you, then this sort of camera may be all you need.

One thing DLSR users will notice about the picture is the lens is f3.5/6.3, which makes it slightly slower than just about any comparable DSLR lens. Serious shooters at 200mm on a DSLR also have the option to buy an f/2.8 zoom lens or a f/2 prime. Such options are probably not available for the Sony.

If you get serious about interchangeable lenses, you will eventually notice that while bodes become obsolescent in half a decade, good lenses remain useful for decades. Therefore the value in an interchangeable lense system is in the lenses, and these new compact interchangeable lenses just don't have the diversity and quality range of product that is available to DSLR shooters. This may change in time. For now, this intermediate line looks to me a lot more like technology that you buy expecting to throw it away in a few years. When you buy DSLR lenses, you are buying something that will keep.

If you are committing to a long-term involvement wth photography, I think buying an entry-level, (or one up from entry level) DSLR body, is the way to go. By the time your first body becomes obsolescent you should have learned enough to make a higher-end body worth while. Meanwhile all your lenses will still be useful (as long as you avoid buying a low-end kit lens).

Complete Photography Newb here.

Im looking to purchase and entry level DSLR to see if this is a hobby that will appeal to me. Ive always used Canon point and shoots in the past so i think i would be happier sticking with Canon.

My main uses for the camera will be photos of my kids, for use on holidays and id love to get into taking some landscape shots eventually.

Im looking at the Canon 1100d (is). How important is the image stabilization lens bearing in mind i will mainly be shooting handheld shots? Will the kit lens suffice as an allround lens or should i be buying body only and adding a different lens as an allrounder?

Thanks in advance

oh and theres some amazing images itt.

People do things for the darndest reasons. Brand loyalty is why there are brands - to get you to buy something for emotional reasons rather than logical reasons.

When I bought my first non-DSLR camera, I bought a Canon, because it was the best product available for my needs and budget. It wasn't because I already had a Canon color printer. When I bought a DSLR, of course I considered Canon, but I bought a Nikon because its specs were better and when I tried out each model before I bought, there wasn't any signficant ease-of-use advantage to any manufacturer.
IS is more important to hand-held use than use on a tripod. It is also more important with slow glass, (like the kit lens or an all-in-one lens) because it allows you to shoot a couple stops faster in lower light.

The kit lens is too short for getting detail from a distance or for good individual portraits. It is too short for a general purpose, all-in-one lens. Some people buy the kit lens and then a 55-xmm second lens. Canon and Nikon both make cheap 55-xmm lenses for this purpose. I find the 55mm focal length an awkward place to switch lenses. Also, the Canon kit lens is rather low quality - quite soft. It is more important to invest money in lenses than in bodies. For the type of use you describe, I'd suggest something with a longer reach than the kit lens. However, you wouldn't want longer than 18mm at the low end of the zoom range if you plan onshooting landscapes.

The Canon 1100D (Digital Rebel T3) is Canon's current entry level DSLR. Given what you want, I see no reason to consider a higher level Canon. If you had mentioned video, you might want to consider the EOS 600D (Digital Rebel T3i).

If you intend to go far in the DSLR field, your only other real choice ATM is Nikon. Sony/Minolta/Konica, and Pentax don't really have the lens lineup to compete. If you don't expect you will ever get too serious about lenses, then also conder the cheapest Sony DSLR, or even interchangeable lens EVF or compact cameras, such as those dscussed in the post above yours.

Canon strives to a have a lower priced entry level camera than Nikon. They achieve this goal by pruning out features and lowering build quality. The cheapest current Nikon DSLR is the D3100. Body only, or with the basic kit lens, it costs 10% to 15% more than the 1100D and 1100D kit. Both the Nikon body and Nikkor kit lens are better then the Canons. Unusually for these two manufacturers, the Nikon is even better at video.

Nikon offers a few other advantages for new users. The Guide feature on the D3100 tends to be more user-friendly for absolute beginners. (more experienced users might find Canon's UI more convenient to use). Nikon offers a better all-in-one lens - its 18-200mm is quite popular among Nikonians and of reasonable quality. Canon's 18-200mm not so much. Nikon also offers an affordable (~$200), reasonable quality normal prime lens, the 35mm f/1.8 DX. On Canon you have to chose between a 50mm, which is too big to be normal on a 1.6 crop body, or a very expensive ($1,800) but excellent quality 35mm f/1.4, or a noisy 35mm f/2 antique (22 years old) for $320, which Canon brought out of retirement to "compete" with the Nikon lens.

Leaving aside irrelevancies like brand loalty, if you are going to buy a standard kit, it really comes down to whether ~$70 is more important to you than build (and therefore image) quality.

There's not really much to be argued with in that post. Some pretty solid advice there Deeege.

Just to do some currency conversions for you as you're in the UK like me, the Nikon 35mm f1.8 is currently retailing for about £160, and it is worth noting that I can't find a competing lens from Canon at anything close to this price point, which is both a shame and utterly bizarre given how it is exactly this focal length that is most analogous to a 50mm standard lens from back in the 35mm film days - that is to say that it's the focal length that most closely reflects the normal human field of vision, and is also generally considered to be the best all-round focal length for learning and improving one's photography chops.

In any case I would openly recommend that you consider adding a fast prime lens (f1.4-1.8) to any kit or zoom lens you might consider. The two distinct advantages of this given your intended usage would probably be:

1) better light gathering capabilities, allowing you to make use of natural light in many situations where you would otherwise be forced into using a flash, which can often kill the atmosphere of a scene (especially on-camera flash which is undoubtedly what you would resort to)

2) the ability to create very shallow depth of field, which has the effect of rendering all background details into soft focus or blur, which not only can take away distracting busy backgrounds in portraits (thus bringing the subject more into focus), but it is also a very flattering look for portraits in general, and would greatly improve the quality of your family shots I would imagine.

Solid post do the math.

After reading the last few hundred posts before asking my questions, I was actually hoping that you would reply.

And gazillion, point number 2 you make is what I wanted to say but unfortunately didn't know how to say it. Portraits with busy backgrounds is exactly what I want to move away from by getting my first dslr.

Thanks for the responses, I will re-read them a few times later today when time allows.

Randomly decided to enter a picture into National Geographic. They selected it as well as 11 others for photo of the day. Feel free to vote for mine, as it increases chance of being published!

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/yo...voting-machine

It's the 5th one in. Shot of a parrot I took in Australia.

I went through all 12 and didn't see any shots of a parrot...

I guess they changed the pictures because it was there yesterday

My new camera arrived today. I took your advice DTM and decided to go for the Nikon D3100 and i must say, so far im very impressed.

My plan from here is to get the 50mm 1.8 as a prime before Christmas and then probably the 55-200mm early next year for my planned travels.

Quick question. Which would be best for mainly portrait shots? 35mm 1.8G or 50mm 1.8G? I'm leaning towards the 50mm (which will be the equivalent of 75mm) as i have read this is a very good quality lens fro the money?

Deege,

I have one of the 50mm/1.8's (the AF-D in my case) and I can confirm that I am very happy with its sharpness and clarity. To answer your question, 50mm would be a good choice for individual portraits, but if you are looking for a little more versatility with the option to take group portraits, then the 35mm may be a better choice for you.

If you are considering adding the 55-200mm in the near future, I would maybe give some extra consideration to the 35mm as it will broaden your range of focal length options down the line. You won't really have the wide-angle bases covered for the time being (which may not be an issue for you at all), but at least by choosing the 35mm lens then you can enjoy the benefits of a standard focal length that will also perform well in many portrait scenarios. 35mm (50mm equivalent) can still be put to good use on individual portraits by simply getting slightly closer to the subject - in fact, the closer you are to the subject in relation to the distance between them and the background, the more you should see the benefits of shallow depth of field. To try to give you a rough idea:

Camera ----- Subject ---------------------- Background: Nice shallow DoF
Camera --------------------- Subject ------ Background: DoF will not be as shallow, and the background will be more in focus.

Congrats on the D3100 by the way - welcome to the world of DSLR photography!


Edit: the above comments about broadening your focal length options is based on the assumption that you did not pick up the kit lens with the D3100, and it's just occurred to me that I may have been at fault assuming this, so you may already have 18-55mm covered by the kit lens. Even so, my comments about the 35mm with respect to group shots will still hold. Like I said, I have a 50mm prime, but I often feel the sting of not having opted for 35mm as my first prime lens. It's something I plan to correct early in the New Year. Your mileage may vary. The best advice I could offer you if you have the kit lens is to set it to 35mm and try framing a few typical shots for your chosen usage, and then do the same with the lens zoomed to 50mm, and see which feels more appropriate for you. Whichever feels the most useful would be the one I would go for.

Pretty much this.

I have 50mm 1.4 that I use with my Canon, but if I would buy a prime today I would go with a wider one like a 24mm or 35mm. Would just suit my shooting style better I guess.

Thanks for the input again Gazillion, really helpful.

I'm gonna keep playing around with the kit lens for a week or two more and see which prime to go for.

Ive gotta say though, after reading many bad reviews about the kit lens, im more than impressed so far and i havn't even had it out of Auto / Portrait mode yet. The shallow depth of field that i have been experimenting with and acheiving has been great. Its just a shame my little girl is full of chicken pox otherwise i would post a few pics.

Really looking forward to getting out there now, just a shame i wont have a day off until xmas eve.

The kit lenses generally arent as bad as you expect them to be after reading reviews, if you're coming from a non-DSLR background. The 18-105 kit lens I got with my D7000 is OK too, especially when compared to anything that a compact camera or non-DSLR has to offer.

Over time though, you may start to hear terms like "chromatic aberration" thrown around, and then once you've developed your eye a little you may start to notice some reasonably complex distortions at certain focal lengths on certain subject matter. Then, when compared to more capable lenses you will probably eventually notice it is not as sharp, maybe not quite as vibrant/contrasty, and its comparatively restricted aperture choices will start to feel more limited.

That's not to say you can't take great photos with it though, because you certainly can. It's just that in comparison to more capable lenses it will fall short of the mark in a number of areas. Don't worry about all that stuff though - just enjoy what you have, because what you have now is leagues ahead of anything you've previously owned, and you have everything that will allow you to take some wonderful photos. Enjoy!

Glad you like the D3100.

The 50mm f/1.8 is a good lens for the money. So is the 35mm f/1.8 DX.

I wouldn't use either for portraits, myself. Both are too short. The 50mm might be good for photographing a person's full body while standing. The 35mm might be OK for whole body shots of groups, or for showing a whole person in an environment.

So what's the best lens to use for portraits? It depends on what you mean by 'portrait'. When I hear the word I think of head shots, taken in a space optimized for the purpose, and intended to make the subject look good. So most of what follows deals with lenses to take head shots of an individual, assumes you are not in cramped quarters, and assumes a shooting distance that gives resuts that are more flattering than accurate.

The wider the lens, the closer you have to get to the subject in order to tightly frame a portrait. And the closer you are to the subject, the more you exaggerate the size of the nose and chin relative to the size of the ears. If you move far enough away, distortion starts to work in your favour. The flattening effect of shots from a distance tend to produce more attractive portraits. A good distance to shoot from to avoid negative distortion and to provide flattering distortion is probably somewhere in the 10-15 foot range. Professional model shoots often shoot from even farther away. For the most accurate (but less flattering) depiction, you might want to get as close as eight feet. So for portraits, you want to choose a lens that tightly frames the subject at your chosen shooting distance.

I think the best choice of lens for individual portraits is something with an effective focal length (EFL) of somewhere between 100 and 200mm. On a Nikon crop body that means a lens somewhere between 65mm and 135mm. Besides focal length, the other attribute to look for is large maximum aperture - ideally f/2 or faster. This is so you can really narrow the depth of field.

So, did I just pull that 100-200mm EFL range out of thin air? No. It has to do with how your brain sees things and recognizes people. For a better explanation than I can give, see Ken Rockwell's article about choice of focal length for portraiture. If you think Rockwell is a buffoon and 15 feet is too distant a perspective, consider that it still needs > 120mm EFL to get a tight head shot from the 8 foot perspective. That's > 80mm on a 1.5 crop. A common rule of thumb for portrait lenses is twice normal. If the 35mm is the closest lens to normal on a 1.5 crop, you're looking at needing 70mm. Another standard was 105mm on 35mm film. Again that yields 70mm on your camera. A lot of sources suggest 85-135mm EFL, but 50mm on a crop is only 75mm EFL. No matter which way you look at it, 50mm (75mm EFL) is too short for optimal head, or head and shoulder, shots.

The 85mm f/1.4 is wonderful for portraits (the 85mm f/1.8 less so, because its bokeh is not so good). Nikon also makes two specialized lenses suitable for portraits, designated DC, for Defocus Control. These lenses allow you to modify the quality of the out-of-focus elements of the picture. They are both f/2 and have 105mm and 135mm focal lengths. In a pinch, the 70-200mm f/2.8 can do a decent job if you can control the background, as can the 24-70mm f/2.8 at max zoom. The 60mm and 105mm f/2.8 micro lenses can also stand in for portraits.

People who recommend the 50mm (or something shorter) for portraits are usually thinking about the need for a fast lens (so you can throw the backfround out of focus), but are generally ignoring the perspective issue. Alternatively, they are thinking about 'portraits' as something showing a lot more than head and top of shoulders. Sample photos used to support arguments for the 50mm usually have a lot more in the frame than head and shoulders (and usually have it oriented for landscape, not portrait). Another reason the 50mm is often recommended is cost. Almost all the lenses that are truly good for portraits are expensive. On a crop body, the 50mm is almost long enough, and is a lot cheaper than longer fast primes.

If by "portrait" you mean full body, or environmental portraits, then the 50mm is a fine choice on your crop body. If you are talking about taking pictures of friends in your living room, where you don't have too much room to move, again the 50mm is fine.

There are a couple of exceptions to the need for a longer lens for head shots. One is when the head is in profile and the ear is covered. (nothing to distort). The other is when distortion is a good thing. Babies and young children can look extra cute when shot with shorter focal lengths (you are used to seeing you own infant at close range), and you can get amusing effects from distortion when photographing adults close up.

TMI for somebody starting out and wanting to take photos of his kids IMO.

Yeah, I guess so. I was addressing the technical question, not the needs of the questioner.

What I should have said is:

Both the 50mm and the 35mm are good value for the money. Each one will be great for taking pictures of your kids. Neither one should be mistaken for a true portrait lens. The 50mm comes closer to being a portrait lens, but the 35mm might be more generally useful, since it is "normal" on a 1.5 crop body.

Sorry DTM. I just re-read my response and realised that it probably came off as a lot more dismissive than I intended it to. All I was really trying to say was that there may be a danger of "information overload" for a newcomer when providing the amount of detail that you offered in your post. Everything you said was completely valid, but I get the feeling that it might have been a little overwhelming for somebody fairly new to DSLRs and on a limited budget. I didn't mean to write off your response so bluntly - I was posting from a phone so was aiming for brevity, but I could have done a much better job of it, so sorry about that

No problem whatsoever, Gazillion. You made a valid point and I thank you for bringing it up. I took your post pretty much exactly as you intended it.

I tend to run off at the mouth. I get so caught up in the technical detail that I forget to tailor my answer to the knowledge and interests of the casual user. What I could have done better was to give a simple and concise answer specifically for Deeege, and then followed up with a detailed post for those who are interested. Hopefully your input will help me become a better poster.

I've spent an hour trying to do this in Word and gotten absolutely nowhere. The idea is to make a table to split the page into 4 sections - so I can print off 4 at a time, with the text centered in each cell - and a graphical border surrounding the text in the cell - and divider lines.

Seems simple enough right? Totally and utterly impossible.

Try this:

Set page layout to landscape, all four margins to one inch.

Set columns to two per page, with a one inch space between them.

At top of first column, insert two newlines.

Before second newline, insert a 3x3 cell table, autosized to fit contents. This table will be one card.

Type what you want in the cells of the middle column.

Adjust column width and heights as necessary.

Set cell border graphics as desired.

Copy table and following newline. Paste at end of document three times.

Change the font size of the newline between the tables to provide proper spacing.

Ok well I ended up making a template in Excel - since I knew I could figure out the table stuff. If anyone wants this for printing up little info. cards to put on the back of your framed pics - here you go: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/900700/Photo...s-template.xls

Thanks DTM, just saw your post. The problem with the word tables was half the time the text would push the graphics around, and half the time it wouldn't I wanted the graphics to be static with respect to the table or page. I tried pushing them to the background but that didn't seem to work. Also it seems like you can group graphics (like in Visio) but damn if I could ever figure out how to select more than one auto-shape at a time. Basically Word tables have always been a nightmare for me. But I cut my teeth on Excel a long time ago, so I feel a lot more comfortable there.

Now I just need to figure out the most sturdy card-stock-type paper that my printer can handle.

DTM > All

Mike: You should probably give your blog a more descriptive name It popped in my Google Reader today and I couldn't figure out wtf it was

So I took 2 panoramas of the intersection where I used to live in Chicago... 6 corners of milwaukee, damen, and north for those that know the area. I just got there and took a lot of photos with my goal being to capture the movement and energy of the intersection. Both incorporate elements from multiple exposures and took wayyyy too much time in photoshop. There are still some geometric distortions I can't seem to fix. I've always considered myself kind of crappy at pano's so any help or feedback is appreciated!