Digital SLR suggestion needed (hobbyist looking to transition to pro)

[Farmer]

I'm going to give you the best advice a pro photographer can give another aspiring photographer: Get Cheap. Get Cheap lenses.

Are you kidding me? The difference between a kit lens and a real lens is obvious from anyone who takes more than a passing glance at your photos. It's not the 80s anymore. the image processors on modern DSLRs do 90% of the darkroom. For a photographer on a budget, Photoshop should not be a problem, if you get my meaning.

You don't need to spend $2000 on glass. You also don't need to use kit lens. There is plenty of good glass on the order of hundreds of dollars.

Fast AF is another attribute of expensive lens, but you can't say quality of optics doesn't matter.

Paladin3:

I can understand where you're coming from if you're a news photographer, but there certainly are applications where speed is not the most important thing.

 

[finbarqs]

i have high DR every day with my eyes

If you're talking about the Tone-Mapped HDR effect, then it is a problem. But for like real estate photography, they need to maintain detail in doors as well as outdoors (which is a contrast of approximately 5 stops)

Which brings me to my other point: You're camera should be able to handle that situation with maintaining detail in a scene that's 5 stops apart. (5D2 is 11 according to DxO) yet it still struggles, even though it doubled it. I guess it has the ability to do so, but it wont be pretty is what I'm guessing...

I do agree that it helps in case you took that one shot that either is under or over exposed, or you just wanted to compress the contrast for print or the monitor.

I personally like the keep things light and easy, and my X100 has done me wonders! I've taken it on a professional studio session before, and it rocked! (2x Pocketwizards - multi-max + plus 2) with speedotron 2403 and 3 lights!

 

[finbarqs]

Are you kidding me? The difference between a kit lens and a real lens is obvious from anyone who takes more than a passing glance at your photos. It's not the 80s anymore. the image processors on modern DSLRs do 90% of the darkroom. For a photographer on a budget, Photoshop should not be a problem, if you get my meaning

That would be true if you shoot on JPEG. RAW files definitely need to be touched up, color corrected (WB), and whatever the photographer/processor decides to do creatively. I have no idea where you come up with the idea where DSLR's do 90% of the darkroom. Unless you're under ideal lighting conditions, then it's not the DSLR doing the darkroom for you. It's you understanding the DSLR's limitation, and manipulating different temperature lighting to get the "color/mood" you're going for.

The 80s were easy. All you need was the right film. Get the right composition. Snap. Send it off. Then you had awesome pics. I did a test with my Nikon FE 28mm F/8 with Velvia 100 vs. my 5D Mark 2 with the 24-70 F2.8L @ 28mm lens F/8 using Nik Software's "Velvia" processing. Difference was pretty obvious, with film edging out the Mark 2.

If I just converted it to JPEG with standard RAW, Film will blow that JPEG out of the water easily. Maybe I should mention that I shoot RAW + JPEG. The reason behind this is that some images I do NOT need any processing for the look of the image. Of course, these images are not going to win any contests, nor will I give them to my client. But I do have a custom setting in my 5D Mark 2 for the images I like when I use it for Landscape, Still Life, Portraiture, or Commercial. That's what I retain the JPEGS for.

That's why Post is VERY important... and maybe some classes to learn post. But with Lightroom, that burden is removed!

 

[yhelothar]

I'm going to give you the best advice a pro photographer can give another aspiring photographer: Get Cheap. Get Cheap lenses.

Rest of the money, invest in post processing. i.e. Photoshop, Photoshop Lightroom, etc.

Unless you're shooting commercial work, you don't need top quality glass to give people a chance to pixel peep. Weddings and portraiture, as long as you can nail focus, then you can give the photos any type of treatment you would like.

That's the main difference between film and digital: Film, you send it off to a lab for them to do the "Photoshop" work. Digital, it's all you. That's why with good film (I personally like ektachrome VS -- good color saturation without destroying skin tones like Velvia does) you take your pics, send if off, and it comes back beautiful! R.I.P. Kodachrome

Also, what determines IQ? Are you talking about Sharpness? Dynamic Range? It's kind of hard to test a camera for it's dynamic when you are different lenses on them, which will determine the amount of contrast. By Definition, Dynamic Range is the amount of stops before you reach no detail in the highlights and shadows. Another word for this is "contrast". So having MORE dynamic range literally means you have less contrast at a given scene. So in a high contrast scene, if your camera (the sensor) is able to produce very low contrast scenes, then it has done its job properly!

Remember, the Key word here is "in a given scene" (which includes subjects). I'd be hard pressed to see if people can actually discern the differences between a camera that has "higher dynamic range" in a low contrast scene such as "A Cloudy Day on the Beach".

This is a very unconventional view, but I tend to agree - unless you have pro lighting equipment, post processing will almost be required for the image to look at its best.

With post processing, a kit lens image can easily look awesome. You may still need the pro glass for the extra wide aperture effects, but aside from that, at higher apertures, they will turn out pretty close at the sizes people will actually view the image at.

I would say that dynamic range is the single most important factor for an image to look impressive. It's the main reason DSLRs look so much better than P&S. Dynamic range may have lower contrast, but it brings out colors, which is part of the perception of contrast. While that blown out sky may have higher contrast to the foreground, it won't look nearly as pleasant as a deep blue sky with the foreground.

 

[Paladin3]

I guess I missed where the OP in his original post said he wanted to shoot portraits too. Most of my advice has been geared towards the concert, red carpet, semi-paparazzi type work, and I think that requires a different set of gear than just strait studio portraiture would. So my comments should be read with that in mind.

Relying on Photoshop and post processing can kill you if you are on a deadline. The clients who purchase images from concerts or red carpet events are often on deadline and need photos transmitted to them immediately after the event.

It's one of the reasons I often shoot in .jpg and let the camera do the processing. You're shooting on spec most of the time too and don't want some other shooter's images landing on your potential client's desk ahead of yours. And 24 hours later the images may be worthless. I usually don't have hours or days to spend processing hundreds of images.

As for cheap tools, I agree that the cheapest equipment that does the job is what most pros will buy. We enjoy saving our money for stuff like paying the bills and putting food on the table. That doesn't mean we buy cheap, crappy glass that produces images that need to be saved in Photoshop later. There is a difference between least expensive tool and cheap crap.

Sames goes for having to have the latest cameras with the highest dynamic range possible. It might be important for other kinds of work, but not the kind the OP is talking about.

 

[blastingcap]

i have high DR every day with my eyes

If you're talking about the Tone-Mapped HDR effect, then it is a problem. But for like real estate photography, they need to maintain detail in doors as well as outdoors (which is a contrast of approximately 5 stops)

Which brings me to my other point: You're camera should be able to handle that situation with maintaining detail in a scene that's 5 stops apart. (5D2 is 11 according to DxO) yet it still struggles, even though it doubled it. I guess it has the ability to do so, but it wont be pretty is what I'm guessing...

I do agree that it helps in case you took that one shot that either is under or over exposed, or you just wanted to compress the contrast for print or the monitor.

I personally like the keep things light and easy, and my X100 has done me wonders! I've taken it on a professional studio session before, and it rocked! (2x Pocketwizards - multi-max + plus 2) with speedotron 2403 and 3 lights!

I am assuming this was directed to me. The G3 is a good camera and can do things SLRs can't do (like be less imposing, fast CDAF on an articulating screen, histogram in the viewfinder, size/weight reduction, manual focus assist via magnification right in the LCD or viewfinder, etc.), just that you have to be more careful about metering and exposure to avoid clipped highlights, due to the smaller dynamic range of the G3 (about 10.6 stops). The D5100 allows one to be lazier because of its greater margin for error (13.6 stops).

 

[GWestphal]

If you want a a good starter I think you'll be fine with T2i,T3i,60D on Canon side, or 3100,5100, 7100 on Nikon side, or even an older D40 or D40x to start out with. I'd stick with a kit lens until I knew what lengths I shoot at then get a nice L lens in that range.

 

[finbarqs]

I guess I missed where the OP in his original post said he wanted to shoot portraits too. Most of my advice has been geared towards the concert, red carpet, semi-paparazzi type work, and I think that requires a different set of gear than just strait studio portraiture would. So my comments should be read with that in mind.

Relying on Photoshop and post processing can kill you if you are on a deadline. The clients who purchase images from concerts or red carpet events are often on deadline and need photos transmitted to them immediately after the event.

It's one of the reasons I often shoot in .jpg and let the camera do the processing. You're shooting on spec most of the time too and don't want some other shooter's images landing on your potential client's desk ahead of yours. And 24 hours later the images may be worthless. I usually don't have hours or days to spend processing hundreds of images.

As for cheap tools, I agree that the cheapest equipment that does the job is what most pros will buy. We enjoy saving our money for stuff like paying the bills and putting food on the table. That doesn't mean we buy cheap, crappy glass that produces images that need to be saved in Photoshop later. There is a difference between least expensive tool and cheap crap.

Sames goes for having to have the latest cameras with the highest dynamic range possible. It might be important for other kinds of work, but not the kind the OP is talking about.

Photoshop is for pictures that are contest winners now. Cheap glass will not produce "bad images". In fact, they'll produce proper images that does not need to be saved in photoshop. Comparing a standard glass vs. top glass, you'll see that top glass has better micro-contrast at a given color, thus reproducing deeper colors. And sometimes, because of the contrast, images will look sharper (sagittal vs. meridonial mesaurements)

It's not like we're fixing bad focus! Anyways, lightroom has alleviated that issue for us 10 fold!

 

[jacqg]

Buy your gear used if you're not picky with your gear. Honestly even getting something cheap like a D40/50D with a decent lens can teach you a lot of things already. Good luck!!

 

[elitejp]

First you didnt mention if your friend currently uses a dslr. If he is then get the same brand as him and borrow lenses. The lenses will be the most important factor and your most expensive cost. If your trying to keep it cheap I think its the Nikon D5100 that has just totally wowed most dslr enthuist due to the bang for buck along with dynamic range and just overall pic quality. Your just not going to get a better camera in that price range. If your looking at canon you can take a look at the original 5D. People still say those pics are magic. Its main downfall for current times is its low mp count. Otherwise the rebel series xxxd have the same sensor as its current counterpart in the prosumer class xxd. What that means is that t2i and the 50d basically can take the exact same pic. The difference with the prosumer crop models is that they can take more pics per second, are sealed better from weather, and are supposedly more sturdy (however I dont really think that matters in today's age of high strength plastic) and a few other things are just easier to use on a prosumer. You need to decide whether or not you will use crop or full frame. Most anybody making money off of there shots will sooner or later switch to ff. If you choose to stick with crop i would prob just pick up a t2i. The t3i and 60d dont really offer too much more for what you want to shoot. The models wont be sprinting down the runway so i dont think you will need anymore than 3fps. Hopefully someone who shoots nikon can chime in on whats a good buy.

 

[blastingcap]

First you didnt mention if your friend currently uses a dslr. If he is then get the same brand as him and borrow lenses. The lenses will be the most important factor and your most expensive cost. If your trying to keep it cheap I think its the Nikon D5100 that has just totally wowed most dslr enthuist due to the bang for buck along with dynamic range and just overall pic quality. Your just not going to get a better camera in that price range. If your looking at canon you can take a look at the original 5D. People still say those pics are magic. Its main downfall for current times is its low mp count. Otherwise the rebel series xxxd have the same sensor as its current counterpart in the prosumer class xxd. What that means is that t2i and the 50d basically can take the exact same pic. The difference with the prosumer crop models is that they can take more pics per second, are sealed better from weather, and are supposedly more sturdy (however I dont really think that matters in today's age of high strength plastic) and a few other things are just easier to use on a prosumer. You need to decide whether or not you will use crop or full frame. Most anybody making money off of there shots will sooner or later switch to ff. If you choose to stick with crop i would prob just pick up a t2i. The t3i and 60d dont really offer too much more for what you want to shoot. The models wont be sprinting down the runway so i dont think you will need anymore than 3fps. Hopefully someone who shoots nikon can chime in on whats a good buy.

I agree with most of your post, esp. borrowing the friend's lenses. But I thought the main drawback of the 5D was its ancient autofocus. Also it is not necessary to go full frame to sell photos, unless they are going to a snobby magazine that specifies a too-high megapixel count for DX cameras (and even then, you might be able to upsample if it's close). A fast, powerful DX camera with good autofocus, high-ISO, color depth, and DR like a D7000 w/ good glass will outperform a slow-AF 5D in many situations.

 

[elitejp]

The 5d and the 5d2 have the same autofocus as the rebel series so my thinking is get the original 5d which obviously could only be had by buying used. I didnt really mention it specifically but it should only be bought if the price is right. Full frame will still out perform crop sensors even though its an old model. You have to remember that the original 5d was one of the main cameras wedding pro's used. So for the OP's style of shooting it should be considered. But we really need to hear back on what the Op's budget is. Ive personally been wanting to move to ff for a long time but until my lens line up is complete I would be amiss in spending money on another body. Lenses before body. But im glad someone can further give some insight into nikons line up. Currently i think nikon has been putting out some very good cameras.

 

[finbarqs]

on a FF, nikon's 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 will give you a good coverage.

But to start going pro, besides the kit lens, maybe a cheap 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 will be a good addition to doing portraits.

 

[blastingcap]

The 5d and the 5d2 have the same autofocus as the rebel series so my thinking is get the original 5d which obviously could only be had by buying used. I didnt really mention it specifically but it should only be bought if the price is right. Full frame will still out perform crop sensors even though its an old model. You have to remember that the original 5d was one of the main cameras wedding pro's used. So for the OP's style of shooting it should be considered. But we really need to hear back on what the Op's budget is. Ive personally been wanting to move to ff for a long time but until my lens line up is complete I would be amiss in spending money on another body. Lenses before body. But im glad someone can further give some insight into nikons line up. Currently i think nikon has been putting out some very good cameras.

Wedding pros used to shoot with film and manual focus, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate in this day and age--it was simply what was available back then. I am pretty sure some pros used high-end DX cameras for weddings these days. (The really big name wedding photographers probably use FX, though, you are correct.) Sensors have improved continually and the highest-end modern DX sensors are within striking range of that old 5D sensor when it comes to high ISO--and in some ways better, like the much higher dynamic range you can find in Nikon/Pentax/Sony APS-C cameras. Of course depth of field is worse, but it's very tricky to shoot with paper-thin DoF anyway, especially if the person is moving.

How much better do DX sensors need to get before it's not worth it to go FX, in terms of money and size/weight? Is grabbing that extra Depth of Field ability worth the tradeoffs? (Note also that cropped sensor's DoF may be an advantage in many cases, such as for macro work and landscapes or any other time when you want as massive a depth of field as possible.)

http://joshliba.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/first-wedding-with-the-nikond7000/

http://www.karinlauphoto.com/focal-length-2/the-twoformat-solution.html

http://www.flickr.com/groups/d7000-club/discuss/72157626231558447/

http://www.popphoto.com/how-to/2009/04/full-frame-decision?page=full <- old article; 3 years after it was written, the DX/FX line has blurred even more.

The 5D and 5D Mark II's autofocusing is "good enough" for slow-moving stuff like weddings, but...

http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/2009/08/canon-eos-5d-mkii-autofocus-unhappy-5d.html

 

[RobDickinson]

Bold? I'm just quoting DxOMark scores. The big difference seems to be the D5100s (and D7000s)better dynamic range.

JR

DXO 'scores' are next to useless. DCO is better when you push on into the detail but it is just pure sensor data and not the camera, nor does it worry too much about things like resolution (8mp normalised prints etc).

How does the crop camera reproduce things like subject isolation the way a FF body can?

TBH I think you can get by with a couple of good crop cameras if absolute shallow DOF isnt your thing.

But I will re-iterate , if I was paying a pro to shoot something I would want them to have good professional geat and more importantly backup gear should something break. and it does.

I also agree on the buy cheap, buy cheap lenses thing too, how to match both? well buy the 85/1.8 instead of the 85L, no one will notice the differenceso long as it gives the results. That doesnt mean use the 18-55 kit lens though

 

[JohnnyRebel]

DXO 'scores' are next to useless.

It is what it is. Did you notice that I started with "FWIW"?

From www.thefreedictionary.com
"for what it's worth: Even though it may not be important or valuable"

Is this concept really above your head?

BTW (even though I FWIW'd the original comment) DxO scores are one valid consideration. Better Dynamic Range is still better dynamic range.

How does the crop camera reproduce things like subject isolation the way a FF body can?

Subject isolation is not the be-all and end-all of IQ. It is one part of the "full frame advantage".

JR

 

[JohnnyRebel]

maybe a cheap 50/1.8 or 50/1.4

+1.

The 50 f/1.8 is great and the f/1.4 is even better. Get the f/1.4 if it's in your budget.

JR

 

[finbarqs]

Wedding pros used to shoot with film and manual focus, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate in this day and age--it was simply what was available back then. I am pretty sure some pros used high-end DX cameras for weddings these days. (The really big name wedding photographers probably use FX, though, you are correct.) Sensors have improved continually and the highest-end modern DX sensors are within striking range of that old 5D sensor when it comes to high ISO--and in some ways better, like the much higher dynamic range you can find in Nikon/Pentax/Sony APS-C cameras. Of course depth of field is worse, but it's very tricky to shoot with paper-thin DoF anyway, especially if the person is moving.

How much better do DX sensors need to get before it's not worth it to go FX, in terms of money and size/weight? Is grabbing that extra Depth of Field ability worth the tradeoffs? (Note also that cropped sensor's DoF may be an advantage in many cases, such as for macro work and landscapes or any other time when you want as massive a depth of field as possible.)

http://joshliba.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/first-wedding-with-the-nikond7000/

http://www.karinlauphoto.com/focal-length-2/the-twoformat-solution.html

http://www.flickr.com/groups/d7000-club/discuss/72157626231558447/

http://www.popphoto.com/how-to/2009/04/full-frame-decision?page=full <- old article; 3 years after it was written, the DX/FX line has blurred even more.

The 5D and 5D Mark II's autofocusing is "good enough" for slow-moving stuff like weddings, but...

http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/2009/08/canon-eos-5d-mkii-autofocus-unhappy-5d.html

with the D800, you wouldn't even need to care about that at all. D800 has the same pixel pitch as their D7000. So what does this mean? It means you can just take the picture, crop to an APS-C sized frame (~ 40% less) and you'll get just about the exact same picture. Nothing magical about it. Crop literally means crop. Don't forget that.. 5D Mark 2 will yield 8MP results in APS-C mode (cropped to APS-C size)

 

[blastingcap]

with the D800, you wouldn't even need to care about that at all. D800 has the same pixel pitch as their D7000. So what does this mean? It means you can just take the picture, crop to an APS-C sized frame (~ 40% less) and you'll get just about the exact same picture. Nothing magical about it. Crop literally means crop. Don't forget that.. 5D Mark 2 will yield 8MP results in APS-C mode (cropped to APS-C size)

True.

But.

If I had unlimited resources and all camera gear were the same size and weight, sure, bring on the D800. I have limited resources and got weary of carrying big cameras and lenses around, especially the 24-70 Nikkor which I used and hauled around a few times before deciding to downgrade permanently to DX or smaller. My back thanked me. I don't regret the $aving$ that resulted, either.

 

[finbarqs]

True.

But.

If I had unlimited resources and all camera gear were the same size and weight, sure, bring on the D800. I have limited resources and got weary of carrying big cameras and lenses around, especially the 24-70 Nikkor which I used and hauled around a few times before deciding to downgrade permanently to DX or smaller. My back thanked me. I don't regret the $aving$ that resulted, either.

hence, a cheap DSLR will work wonders... heck maybe even the 4/3's will give you awesome results!