[hypercaine.]

Evening all,
Im looking to get started with photography; ive always loved it and a friend of mine is an avid photographer who takes great pictures, I love graphics, illustration and all sorts but never really got into photography simply because I know DSLRs are so expensive!
But anyway, im looking at buying an DSLR but have a small budget so im looking at used models and dont want to spend over £200 (I know this could be an issue) but to be honest I dont have the slightest clue where to begin. Im probably gonna look at Nikon because my mate uses them which means im guessing I could borrow some of his kit if need be/he could give me some tips or whatever but apart from that I have no clue at all. I obviously want the best one I can afford but I also want something which is pretty versatile in terms of lenses and also something which doesnt always need loads of messing around before you can take a half decent photo depending on the situation.
So far ive been looking at a Nikon D3000, Nikon D60 and Nikon D40 but this is only because I have found all of those in my price range, obviously the D3000 is the latest model and therefore probably the best but at the same time I have no idea what lense(s) I would need to get started.
Im aware I have quite a limited budget so I dont really want to waste my money, I have a iPhone 4 with Instagram so if it would be better I stuck with that and leave out the whole 'proper' stuff then please tell me, I wouldnt like to part with my hard earned cash for no significant gain.

Thank you!

[TheSownRose]

(Original post by hypercaine.)
Im aware I have quite a limited budget so I dont really want to waste my money, I have a iPhone 4 with Instagram so if it would be better I stuck with that and leave out the whole 'proper' stuff then please tell me, I wouldnt like to part with my hard earned cash for no significant gain.

It’s the last bit, but I’ll actually address this point first.

People often find that their photos get worse when they first start with a DSLR. There are a few reasons that come together to cause this.

• Some people seem to get scared of the camera and hesitate more, mess things like composition up when they didn’t previously.
• To get the most out of a DSLR, you need to use the more manual controls really. People starting out don’t know what they’re doing, by and large ... so they don’t choose the right settings, and therefore don’t get the best picture.
• The reason you need to use manual controls is DSLR auto mode programming is not as good as it is in a compact ... so people using auto also don’t get great photos.
• Same goes for the programming that processes all the data into a JPEG file. Developing that isn’t where the DSLR manufacturers spent their money, so again it’s not as good because the assumption is that the photographer will probably be doing it themselves by using the raw files (these are basically digital negatives, all the data is stored and you process it instead of the camera.)

However, these things all correct in time with a bit of effort, and it’s not that long – a couple of months, or thereabouts. Not saying you’ll be a master photographer at this stage, but you will have figured out what you’re doing enough to be getting the good photos that will make the effort worth it. You have the ability to take better photos with a DSLR and some learning on your part, but you won’t see an instant reward from it and it demands more constant effort when you’re taking the photos – you will always need to be choosing the right aperture or shutter speed, adjusting ISO and exposure compensation where necessary.

IMO, it’s worth it, I take much better photos now than before. However, if you want a camera that you just have to focus, you should instead put the money towards a really good compact. And now that I have scared the dickens out of you...

But anyway, im looking at buying an DSLR but have a small budget so im looking at used models and dont want to spend over £200 (I know this could be an issue) but to be honest I dont have the slightest clue where to begin. Im probably gonna look at Nikon because my mate uses them which means im guessing I could borrow some of his kit if need be/he could give me some tips or whatever but apart from that I have no clue at all. I obviously want the best one I can afford but I also want something which is pretty versatile in terms of lenses and also something which doesnt always need loads of messing around before you can take a half decent photo depending on the situation.

You’re right, it’s not much. However, you’re willing to go second hand which makes everything much easier when the budget is quite small.

Not a bad reason for choosing Nikon, I chose Canon for basically the same reason – my father had one, it made sense to not need two copies of every lens, one for Canon and one for something else. However, make sure he’ll share otherwise it makes that reason invalid if he won’t. Cameras are quite similar, he’ll still be able to help even if you get something else – I was recently required to use a Nikon to shoot an event, most of the stuff was in the same place as it is on my Canon. Have you ever used his camera? How did you find it?

The camera body isn’t a huge factor in the quality of the photo, it’s mostly the lens that affects the image quality. Every manufacturer uses a different lens mount, so you need Nikon (actually, Nikkor is what they call their lenses) lenses or lenses from third party manufacturers (like Tamron and Sigma) designed for Nikon lens mounts. The good thing about Nikon is I don’t believe they have ever changed their lens mount, so all Nikon lenses that were ever made will fit any Nikon camera. There are two issues: there are a small number of lenses that were designed for DX format and may produce a dark edge effect is using on an FX format camera; however, I don't think you're going for FX format yet, they are the top professional cameras. The other regards focusing – lenses that were made before autofocus existed will require manual focusing, and if you combine a body without a focus motor with a lens without a focus motor, that also needs manual focusing.

The practical effect of that is, there are a lot of older lenses that are cheaper and will fit and work on any Nikon you buy, so any camera body is versatile in terms of lenses. As I said in my introduction, you will always need to mess around to get the best photo. But that becomes second nature after a while, and recently I was using a friend’s compact and wondering why I couldn’t change the aperture as I was trying to do.

So far ive been looking at a Nikon D3000, Nikon D60 and Nikon D40 but this is only because I have found all of those in my price range, obviously the D3000 is the latest model and therefore probably the best but at the same time I have no idea what lense(s) I would need to get started.

Age isn’t that important. The D3000 is newer, but it comes from the entry level range. The D40 was the precursor to it, and the D60 is actually from the range up (I think if you look on Wikipedia for a timeline, it’s call a mid range consumer; I tend to call them ‘medium level’. ) None of them have the focus motor that we were discussing above; for that, you’ll need to go to a D70 or D70s, which the range up again (‘serious amateur’, I call it) and are also viable options to look at. They’re all perfectly good cameras; my personal choice would probably be the D60.

Regarding lens... Do you have anything in particular that you want to photograph? Which lens you choose varies depending upon function; I wouldn’t (generally) use the same lens to photograph birds and landscapes, for example.

[hypercaine.]

(Original post by TheSownRose)

Spoiler:

Show

It’s the last bit, but I’ll actually address this point first.

People often find that their photos get worse when they first start with a DSLR. There are a few reasons that come together to cause this.

• Some people seem to get scared of the camera and hesitate more, mess things like composition up when they didn’t previously.
• To get the most out of a DSLR, you need to use the more manual controls really. People starting out don’t know what they’re doing, by and large ... so they don’t choose the right settings, and therefore don’t get the best picture.
• The reason you need to use manual controls is DSLR auto mode programming is not as good as it is in a compact ... so people using auto also don’t get great photos.
• Same goes for the programming that processes all the data into a JPEG file. Developing that isn’t where the DSLR manufacturers spent their money, so again it’s not as good because the assumption is that the photographer will probably be doing it themselves by using the raw files (these are basically digital negatives, all the data is stored and you process it instead of the camera.)

However, these things all correct in time with a bit of effort, and it’s not that long – a couple of months, or thereabouts. Not saying you’ll be a master photographer at this stage, but you will have figured out what you’re doing enough to be getting the good photos that will make the effort worth it. You have the ability to take better photos with a DSLR and some learning on your part, but you won’t see an instant reward from it and it demands more constant effort when you’re taking the photos – you will always need to be choosing the right aperture or shutter speed, adjusting ISO and exposure compensation where necessary.

IMO, it’s worth it, I take much better photos now than before. However, if you want a camera that you just have to focus, you should instead put the money towards a really good compact. And now that I have scared the dickens out of you...



You’re right, it’s not much. However, you’re willing to go second hand which makes everything much easier when the budget is quite small.

Not a bad reason for choosing Nikon, I chose Canon for basically the same reason – my father had one, it made sense to not need two copies of every lens, one for Canon and one for something else. However, make sure he’ll share otherwise it makes that reason invalid if he won’t. Cameras are quite similar, he’ll still be able to help even if you get something else – I was recently required to use a Nikon to shoot an event, most of the stuff was in the same place as it is on my Canon. Have you ever used his camera? How did you find it?

The camera body isn’t a huge factor in the quality of the photo, it’s mostly the lens that affects the image quality. Every manufacturer uses a different lens mount, so you need Nikon (actually, Nikkor is what they call their lenses) lenses or lenses from third party manufacturers (like Tamron and Sigma) designed for Nikon lens mounts. The good thing about Nikon is I don’t believe they have ever changed their lens mount, so all Nikon lenses that were ever made will fit any Nikon camera. There are two issues: there are a small number of lenses that were designed for DX format and may produce a dark edge effect is using on an FX format camera; however, I don't think you're going for FX format yet, they are the top professional cameras. The other regards focusing – lenses that were made before autofocus existed will require manual focusing, and if you combine a body without a focus motor with a lens without a focus motor, that also needs manual focusing.

The practical effect of that is, there are a lot of older lenses that are cheaper and will fit and work on any Nikon you buy, so any camera body is versatile in terms of lenses. As I said in my introduction, you will always need to mess around to get the best photo. But that becomes second nature after a while, and recently I was using a friend’s compact and wondering why I couldn’t change the aperture as I was trying to do.



Age isn’t that important. The D3000 is newer, but it comes from the entry level range. The D40 was the precursor to it, and the D60 is actually from the range up (I think if you look on Wikipedia for a timeline, it’s call a mid range consumer; I tend to call them ‘medium level’. ) None of them have the focus motor that we were discussing above; for that, you’ll need to go to a D70 or D70s, which the range up again (‘serious amateur’, I call it) and are also viable options to look at. They’re all perfectly good cameras; my personal choice would probably be the D60.

Regarding lens... Do you have anything in particular that you want to photograph? Which lens you choose varies depending upon function; I wouldn’t (generally) use the same lens to photograph birds and landscapes, for example.

Thanks for such an elaborate reply! One thing I was worried about was the lens mount and I wasnt sure whether they have changed or not over time, I assumed they wouldve but since youve clarified that, great!

I havent used my friends, well I have but not extensively; it was more like here give it a go to which I think I literally just pressed the capture button :P a lot of the other buttons meant nothing to me and I didnt want to mess up his gear I know he likes to do a lot of trips to various places and take photos of nature (birds, waterfalls, etc. etc.) so im sure hed be happy to take me along and let me use his stuff if necessary, that being said im happy to be swayed to Canon as I have no particular allegiance - I just know he takes good photos and has had 3 different Nikons! Im sure you could do the same with Canon too. Although I have heard bad stories about Olympus so I would like to stick to Canon or Nikon

Youre right about the D60, I did look at most models on the timeline on Wikipedia when doing some research before posting the thread but again, the differences between the models dont really mean much to me but either way I can find the D60 for £149 or the D50 for £75! or D70 for £120.

Im not too sure on a lens, I like to photograph live bands, birds, objects really more than landscapes. Im also considering maybe doing photography in a local club with IamVIP or whatever in an attempt to make some cash from it?

Thanks a lot once again, youve been a massive help so far!

[evening sunrise]

(Original post by hypercaine.)
Evening all,
Im looking to get started with photography; ive always loved it and a friend of mine is an avid photographer who takes great pictures, I love graphics, illustration and all sorts but never really got into photography simply because I know DSLRs are so expensive!
But anyway, im looking at buying an DSLR but have a small budget so im looking at used models and dont want to spend over £200 (I know this could be an issue) but to be honest I dont have the slightest clue where to begin. Im probably gonna look at Nikon because my mate uses them which means im guessing I could borrow some of his kit if need be/he could give me some tips or whatever but apart from that I have no clue at all. I obviously want the best one I can afford but I also want something which is pretty versatile in terms of lenses and also something which doesnt always need loads of messing around before you can take a half decent photo depending on the situation.
So far ive been looking at a Nikon D3000, Nikon D60 and Nikon D40 but this is only because I have found all of those in my price range, obviously the D3000 is the latest model and therefore probably the best but at the same time I have no idea what lense(s) I would need to get started.
Im aware I have quite a limited budget so I dont really want to waste my money, I have a iPhone 4 with Instagram so if it would be better I stuck with that and leave out the whole 'proper' stuff then please tell me, I wouldnt like to part with my hard earned cash for no significant gain.

Thank you!

The sownrose has covered just about everything. My builds are below.

Product family trees are notorious for being spun for reasons of cleaning out the supply chain of an old model when a new one is announced. But in terms of Nikons positioning the D3000 replaced the D60, they have exactly the same sensor, but the D3000 has a better autofocus system, the same one as in the D90 and still in the D5100 today.

If you go on flickr folks are taking awsome images with D40s, D60s etc, one of my contacts produces awsome work with a D60.

But if you can find one for the right price I would go D3000 for the auofocus system. You should be able to get a D3000 for the right price as it was replaced a year ago by the D3100, which in turn was replaced by the D3200 this year. The other thing you might try is seeing if you can find a D5000 for the right price, a long shot, but you never know unless you try. My wife uses a D5000 as her second body and my daughter has one too. If I was selling one of ours with an 18-55 VR lens (which I am not) I would be looking for about 250-275, as it has been replaced by the D5100.

FF cameras are very expensive and even when the entry level FF is launched in August it they will still cost circa just over £1000 pounds body only, so this will be a long way off if your just starting and in any case if you like wild life and sports FF is backwards step, I have no interest in FF personally. For a landscape or portrait specialist FF makes a lot of sense.

But if you ever do go FF in some years time your DX lenses will fit a full frame body and the body will switch to crop mode, so you will not get the dark corners but you will get an image of less megapixels. For example if the full frame camera is 24MP then you will get images of 10.5Mp when a DX lens is fitted, which is more than enough for most uses.

Having a friend or family member who will lend you lenses is a good idea, we only have 4 duplicate lenses between the three of us, my wife and I both have a 35mm 1.8 as we often want to use them at the same time, and we both have a 10-24, as we often use these at the same time, although mine is Nikkor and hers is a Tamron. My daughter has two lenses a 18-55VR and a 55-200VR, but she borrows either my wife's 55-300VR or my 70-300VR depending upon which of us she is going out with to a sports or wildlife venue. If she goes out with both of us she borrows my 70-300, because I have other options available to me.

D60 or D3000 are definately worth getting, I have an Iphone too, I make phone calls with it Oh and I play angry birds alot, plus the odd game of chess or bridge, but taking photos nah., I have a compact for that.

Good luck and have fun.

[hypercaine.]

Thanks a lot for your reply evening sunrise

I can find a D3000 for the same price as I can the D60, so I guess it would make sense to go with the D3000 right? The D5000 is just above my price range unless I was to find a good auction on eBay but chances are small, im seeing a lot for £250 for just the body. As I mentioned before, I can get a D50 for half the price (which seems like a bargain to me) but I guess its not really worth it?

So what sort of lens should I be looking at? As I say, not much a landscape person more into taking photos of objects and looking at live bands and nightclubs to help pay for it afterwards.

[evening sunrise]

(Original post by hypercaine.)
Thanks a lot for your reply evening sunrise

I can find a D3000 for the same price as I can the D60, so I guess it would make sense to go with the D3000 right? The D5000 is just above my price range unless I was to find a good auction on eBay but chances are small, im seeing a lot for £250 for just the body. As I mentioned before, I can get a D50 for half the price (which seems like a bargain to me) but I guess its not really worth it?

So what sort of lens should I be looking at? As I say, not much a landscape person more into taking photos of objects and looking at live bands and nightclubs to help pay for it afterwards.

Ok D3000 makes a lot of sense over a D60 for the same price, due to autofocus in low light. That said I use manual focus alot, and I often override focus manually. The big influence here is your intended usage for nightclubs and live gigs to get some payback.

You will benefit greatly from the D3000 autofocus system compared to the D60, in low light. If you want action shots of people dancing you really need an external flash, the pop-up will struggle unless you invade their personal space. an Sb400 will do but new it is pricy given your budget. I am afraid I have zero knowledge of other manufactures flash offerings, when I shot minolta I had minolta flash guns, sony, sony flash guns, Nikon Nikon flash guns. If you are just planning portaits of couples or groups of mates then the pop-up will cope if you fit a 35mm f1.8. or a 18-55 VR and "use your feet". I doubt however that any of the cameras you are looking at will come with the 35 1.8 lens, it is such a gem it tends to be retained, we have two for example. I suspect the bodies you are looking at will come with the 18-55 VR (forget to non VR version).

Now for the counter intuitive bit....

the 18-55 (55 being a good portrait focal length on a DX camera) @ 55 will be @ f5.6, not optimal in a night club without flash or for bokeh, but if you fit a 55-200VR then at 55mm it is at f3.6, far more sensible in a night club and you will get more bokeh for portraits: static portraits without flash, due to the VR, will be viable thus allowing the ambient coloured lights of the night club to show. I have tried this at several parties, but I am too old for night clubs, unless they are of the heavy rock/metal variety, which are the best type anyway IMHO, but never leave me in a condition to operate a camera

For bands, assuming you can get fairly close you will require 200mm hence the 55-200VR, the band members will be in motion, so VR does not matter, and you will need a decent external flash, the Nikon SB600/SB700 et al are expensive and hence I hope someone reading the thread can advise on 3rd party flash guns with a guide number of around 30 @ISO 200.

Now here is the rub, the D5000 sensor, the same one as the D90, is much much better at higher ISOs, giving whatever lens you end up with a boost, and increasing the range of whatever flash you get. You might find it easier to get pay back on the D5000 than the D3000.

Fash range depends its basic power boosted by wider apertures and higher ISOs.

D50 in an nightclub.......nah.

[evening sunrise]

Sorry I forgot about your requirement for object photography, by which suspect you mean objects and products to generate income from a stock or microstock agency.

Most shots of this ilk are taken in a studio like environment in terms of constant and off camera flash, lighting. But you can get good results with a bounce flash gun like an SB400. Also without flash if you use a tripod. Autofocus is not important, as objects tend to stay put, also you tend to shoot close to the minimum focus distance for a given lens and hence manual focus is better anyway. The 18-55VR, 35 1.8 or 55-200VR will enable you to do this.

Now I should also cover the older cheaper lens issue. The main difference between the manufacturers is that Canons (DX) lenses will not mount on their FF cameras, as previously stated this is a long range contraint given the cost of FF bodies. Nikon's entry bodies D60, D3000, D3100, D3200 and D5100 do not have in body motors hence the older, optically very good (but accustically noisy), cheaper AF-D lenses will not autofocus on these bodies. However in the low light of gigs and clubs manual focus is just as good, even allowing for the improved autofocus of the D3000/D5000. What is more, some folks buy Zeiss or Leica lenses, 1500 - 2000 pounds for a 50mm (170 quid for a 50mm f 1.8 AFD and 300 quid for a 50mm f 1.4 AFS) and these only manually focus on any Nikon or Canon or Sony or Pentax body.......

I think manual focus brings a certain amount of trepidation to today's generations, but for those of us who at one time had no autofocus option it does not and in many circumstances manual focus is optimal. I certainly use manual focus for macro, and also for insect shots with 300mm and 500mm telephotos.

Good luck

[TheSownRose]

(Original post by hypercaine.)
Thanks for such an elaborate reply! One thing I was worried about was the lens mount and I wasnt sure whether they have changed or not over time, I assumed they wouldve but since youve clarified that, great!

I havent used my friends, well I have but not extensively; it was more like here give it a go to which I think I literally just pressed the capture button :P a lot of the other buttons meant nothing to me and I didnt want to mess up his gear I know he likes to do a lot of trips to various places and take photos of nature (birds, waterfalls, etc. etc.) so im sure hed be happy to take me along and let me use his stuff if necessary, that being said im happy to be swayed to Canon as I have no particular allegiance - I just know he takes good photos and has had 3 different Nikons! Im sure you could do the same with Canon too. Although I have heard bad stories about Olympus so I would like to stick to Canon or Nikon

Youre right about the D60, I did look at most models on the timeline on Wikipedia when doing some research before posting the thread but again, the differences between the models dont really mean much to me but either way I can find the D60 for £149 or the D50 for £75! or D70 for £120.

Im not too sure on a lens, I like to photograph live bands, birds, objects really more than landscapes. Im also considering maybe doing photography in a local club with IamVIP or whatever in an attempt to make some cash from it?

Thanks a lot once again, youve been a massive help so far!

Take evening sunrise’s advice on Nikon bodies and lenses. I’m a Canon user myself, so my information is theoretical rather than having actually used the cameras. I can give you information on Canon bodies to look at if you wish, but they’re all much of a muchness - as long as you’re happy with Nikon, it makes far more sense for you to use Nikons.

One thing I would say is it sounds like your friend of more of a landscape-nature photographer, and you’re potentially heading down the event/studio route; you may find that, as you develop, your lens needs don’t match up and therefore swapping lenses may not always be as viable.

Bear in mind that you’re unlikely to be making money back in the beginning, so it’s not an instant return.

Oh, and if/when you get a second hand body, reset everything in factory settings before beginning. My friend once sold a camera that he had set up to transfer certain functions to different buttons, so that the normal focus button didn’t do the focusing ... and the purchaser wondered what was wrong when he pressed that button and nothing happened.

[hypercaine.]

Thanks for both of your replies, I really do appreciate it. After looking at lenses ive realised that theyre incredibly expensive (in comparison to used bodies at least) or im just looking at the wrong ones.

Also, after a bit more research it seems I can get the Nikon D3000 or the Canon 1000D at a similar price of about £150 it just depends if I can find a generic lens to get me going for about £50 (so far this has seemed unlikely!) I also dont know what im really looking for, I know youve tried to explain it to me but its all numbers! I also dont know which lenses are compatible with either the Nikon D3000 or Canon 1000D so I dont want to be like "OK, that lens is a good price and I think it fits" only to find out it doesnt fit and a lens which does it triple the price. I understand this would fit the Canon right?: http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/use....5-5.6-is-113/ and this would fit the Nikon?: http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/use...-5.6g-vr-dx-4/
And are they any good?

Thanks again everyone!

[TheSownRose]

(Original post by hypercaine.)
Thanks for both of your replies, I really do appreciate it. After looking at lenses ive realised that theyre incredibly expensive (in comparison to used bodies at least) or im just looking at the wrong ones.

Also, after a bit more research it seems I can get the Nikon D3000 or the Canon 1000D at a similar price of about £150 it just depends if I can find a generic lens to get me going for about £50 (so far this has seemed unlikely!) I also dont know what im really looking for, I know youve tried to explain it to me but its all numbers! I also dont know which lenses are compatible with either the Nikon D3000 or Canon 1000D so I dont want to be like "OK, that lens is a good price and I think it fits" only to find out it doesnt fit and a lens which does it triple the price. I understand this would fit the Canon right?: http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/use....5-5.6-is-113/ and this would fit the Nikon?: http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/use...-5.6g-vr-dx-4/
And are they any good?

Thanks again everyone!

Lenses are expensive; you’ll find that lenses is where most of your money goes when you’re buying photography equipment. They cost a lot relative to the body (it’s not unusual for a lens to cost more than the body) and they get upgraded a lot quicker. Some of them are very optically complex – for example, wide angles are difficult – and the prices reflect this (moral of the story: it sucks to be a landscape photographer. ) Tilt shift lenses are exceptionally expensive; they have optics that correct converging verticals (when you photograph a very tall building, for example, with a normal lens, it looks like it’s converging upwards; tilt shift can correct this. They also can produce the effect where everything looks like a model village ) ... but that’s not easy to manufacture, and tilt shift lenses can cost thousands. Photography is expensive, you’ll learn that soon enough.

Lenses also have the greatest effect on the photo, so people will pay more for them ... and the companies know this. You quickly realise that a lot of what you’re paying for when you buy a camera body is stuff you don’t care about, or that is maybe nice but you could easily do without. The extra money buys you more functions on buttons instead of menus, a bigger body, separate wheels for aperture and shutter, screens that rotate, movie functions... Autofocus generally improves, which is important for some people, but you often the same sensor is used across the various ranges (autofocus and sensor being the important parts of a body in regards to image quality.) For example, my camera cost about half as much as my father’s ... but they have the same sensor, so theoretically image quality is the same. He needed good autofocus because he’s a bird photographer; I do landscapes with a bit of macro thrown in as well, two things that are usually manual focus, so autofocus was largely irrelevant to me. Therefore, I didn’t see the point in paying the extra £500 ... and that is the approach most people take with bodies: they’re not going to buy the £1000 camera when the £500 will do perfectly fine. Not the same with lenses. They’re not multifunctional, their entire purpose is to form an image on the sensor, so people figure that the extra money is going towards something that matters to them, so will pay more when possibly on face value the two lenses don’t seem that different.

With that in mind, it’s why I would personally err towards having an older body and more money to spend on the lens. However, as I said before, my advice on Nikons is mostly theoretical and evening sunrise knows a lot more about them than I do.

Lens crash course (or, What do all the numbers mean?)

I’ll use this as an example lens:

Nikon 55-200MM F/4-5.6 AF-S VR DX

First of all, compatibility. The good news is, you don’t need to know anything technical or memorise lists of codes – nine times out of ten, the lens name will tell you. Canon and Nikon don’t make lenses for each other; you don’t get lenses made by Canon for Nikon lens mounts, or vice versa. So if it says ‘Canon ...’ or ‘Nikon ...’, it’s for their own cameras. Third party manufacturers make lenses for all mounts; however, they will specify ‘Canon fit’ or ‘Nikon fit’. AF-S is the mount code, but as I said you don’t need to memorise long lists of them. Nikon lenses are easy – if it says Nikon, it will fit. Canon is trickier, but only slightly: you need to remember EF. There are two variants, EF (full frame mount) and EF-S (crop sensor mount since 2003.) EF lenses will fit EF and EF-S mounts; EF-S lenses will only fit EF-S mounts. If you go for a Canon, it will in all likelihood be an EF-S one and therefore any lens that has EF in the title will fit.

List of Canon EF-S cameras

7D
20D
30D
40D
50D
60D
300D
350D
400D
450D
500D
550D
600D
650D
1000D
1100D

The millimetres. This is focal length; I could go into the physics and optics of focal lengths ... but you need a working knowledge, not theoretical physics knowledge. Put simply, the further away the thing you want to focus on is, the bigger the biggest number has to be. It gets a little bit complicated by size of the object – far away from you but huge needs a shorter focal length than far away and tiny – and landscapes mess it up completely (you actually use short focal lengths, I often use around about 18mm, because the subtle difference is you’re not focusing on something far away, you’re just trying to keep a long distance in focus. It’s a depth of field task instead, so short focal length and small aperture is best. The point you actually focus is often quite close to you.) Lenses with long focal lengths are telephoto lenses, lenses with short focal lengths are wide angles – the exact point where they become telephotos or wide angles is not entirely clear.

Focal length has an effect on object size and field of view. Telephotos magnify images relative to where you were in relation to the object – the photo of the little bird won’t be the dot that you saw, it will take up the photo if you used the right focal length. Wide angles will minify – if you took a photo of an object with a wide angle, it will appear as though you stood further back when taking it. Telephotos have a narrow field of view; it can pick out the bird, but won’t capture much of the tree surrounding it. Wide angles do the opposite, they get a lot of the scene, sometimes more than we can actually see – I’ve take a few images where I was unable to see my feet in reality, but in the photo my feet are at the bottom of it.

The smaller number listed is the minimum focal length – in this case, 55mm – and the larger one is the maximum focal length – 200mm here. If you are using a camera with a crop sensor (basically not a full frame camera), you get something called crop factor, which means that whilst the actual focal length is as stated, the effective focal length (what it appears to be, and the focal length you would need to reproduce the photo on a full frame camera) is larger – in fact, the crop factor larger. For example, Canon consumer models have crop factor 1.6; if I was using an actual focal length of 100mm, it would appear to be 160mm – 100 x 1.6.

Where two numbers are listed, it is a zoom lens; to get the amount of zoom, divide the larger number by the small one – here, the zoom is 2.6. Some lenses are prime lenses – they have a fixed focal length. In that case, only one focal length would be listed (50mm is quite a common one, there are plenty of others) and obviously there is no zoom.

The F-numbers. These are apertures, or at least they are the biggest apertures that can be achieved – bizarrely, a small numbers means a big aperture, and vice versa. The lens only affects the biggest aperture, you will be able to get the smallest aperture the camera is capable of on any lens. Where there are two numbers listed like this, it means the biggest aperture varies with focal length – you can get an f4 at 55mm, but only an f5.6 at 200mm, and some number between the two at focal lengths in between. Some lenses are called constant aperture, or the biggest aperture does not vary with focal length.

Maximum aperture size can be a reasonable indicator of how good a lens is in low-light. Say I am able to hand hold a camera at 1/50th of a second (just written as 1/50, commonly) – this is the slowest shutter speed I can use without getting motion blur. If I can have an aperture of f2.8 at this shutter speed, I need less light in what I’m photographing than if I were using it with an aperture of f5.6, because f2.8 is bigger and lets more light in. For event photography, this may matter to you. Good low light, you need f2.8 or better really. An f4 is average – not the best, but you could do worse.

The extra bits. These are very variable between lenses, and also between seller – some list things that others don’t. They are numerous and I won’t list them all, but I will go through a few of the common ones:

VR = vibration reduction. It’s Nikon’s name for what Canon calls image stabilisation (IS), Sigma calls optical stabilisation (OS) and Tamron called vibration control (VC); it means that the lens can compensate for some shaking when in use. Whether or not you need it depends upon what you’re photographing (if everything you shoot will be at 1/1000 shutter speed, it’s not going to matter; conversely, if it’ll always be mounted on a tripod, IS can actually be detrimental) and how steady you are (the general rule is you can hand hold with the shutter speed of at least the effective focal length; for example, if you are using an effective focal length of 50mm, you can hand hold at 1/50 at the slowest – the knock on effect being shaking is more important for longer focal lengths. But that is only general; I have very shaky hands and stabilisation is important to me, unless it’s in a tripod lens. Some people are very steady and can hand hold at slow shutter speeds.)

USM = ultra-sonic motor. You may see this on some Canon lenses; it basically means the focus motor is quieter than normal. Can be useful if you’re photographing skittish animals and so forth.

L = Canon’s ‘luxury lens’ range – very good optics, but also very expensive, I wouldn’t worry about this yet.

DX = Nikon incorporate this to signify a lens that was designed for a crop sensor, so that people buying for full frame (FX) will know that it may cause some problems. EF-S is used to signify this in Canon, with the addition of it actually won’t fit a non-crop camera.

If you ever come across one you don’t know, just Google ‘[code] lens marking’.

Now that the lecture is over...

Both of those lenses are fine. Not the best, but also perfectly decent and you’ll get good shots with them. Can you find any with a bit longer focal length? Also, I know Canon do a really good lens – the 50mm f1.8 – which is reasonably cheap; it wouldn’t have the flexibility of a telephoto zoom, but it may be a good option for you if a match exists within Nikon lenses.

[hypercaine.]

(Original post by TheSownRose)

Spoiler:

Show

Lenses are expensive; you’ll find that lenses is where most of your money goes when you’re buying photography equipment. They cost a lot relative to the body (it’s not unusual for a lens to cost more than the body) and they get upgraded a lot quicker. Some of them are very optically complex – for example, wide angles are difficult – and the prices reflect this (moral of the story: it sucks to be a landscape photographer. ) Tilt shift lenses are exceptionally expensive; they have optics that correct converging verticals (when you photograph a very tall building, for example, with a normal lens, it looks like it’s converging upwards; tilt shift can correct this. They also can produce the effect where everything looks like a model village ) ... but that’s not easy to manufacture, and tilt shift lenses can cost thousands. Photography is expensive, you’ll learn that soon enough.

Lenses also have the greatest effect on the photo, so people will pay more for them ... and the companies know this. You quickly realise that a lot of what you’re paying for when you buy a camera body is stuff you don’t care about, or that is maybe nice but you could easily do without. The extra money buys you more functions on buttons instead of menus, a bigger body, separate wheels for aperture and shutter, screens that rotate, movie functions... Autofocus generally improves, which is important for some people, but you often the same sensor is used across the various ranges (autofocus and sensor being the important parts of a body in regards to image quality.) For example, my camera cost about half as much as my father’s ... but they have the same sensor, so theoretically image quality is the same. He needed good autofocus because he’s a bird photographer; I do landscapes with a bit of macro thrown in as well, two things that are usually manual focus, so autofocus was largely irrelevant to me. Therefore, I didn’t see the point in paying the extra £500 ... and that is the approach most people take with bodies: they’re not going to buy the £1000 camera when the £500 will do perfectly fine. Not the same with lenses. They’re not multifunctional, their entire purpose is to form an image on the sensor, so people figure that the extra money is going towards something that matters to them, so will pay more when possibly on face value the two lenses don’t seem that different.

With that in mind, it’s why I would personally err towards having an older body and more money to spend on the lens. However, as I said before, my advice on Nikons is mostly theoretical and evening sunrise knows a lot more about them than I do.

Lens crash course (or, What do all the numbers mean?)

I’ll use this as an example lens:

Nikon 55-200MM F/4-5.6 AF-S VR DX

First of all, compatibility. The good news is, you don’t need to know anything technical or memorise lists of codes – nine times out of ten, the lens name will tell you. Canon and Nikon don’t make lenses for each other; you don’t get lenses made by Canon for Nikon lens mounts, or vice versa. So if it says ‘Canon ...’ or ‘Nikon ...’, it’s for their own cameras. Third party manufacturers make lenses for all mounts; however, they will specify ‘Canon fit’ or ‘Nikon fit’. AF-S is the mount code, but as I said you don’t need to memorise long lists of them. Nikon lenses are easy – if it says Nikon, it will fit. Canon is trickier, but only slightly: you need to remember EF. There are two variants, EF (full frame mount) and EF-S (crop sensor mount since 2003.) EF lenses will fit EF and EF-S mounts; EF-S lenses will only fit EF-S mounts. If you go for a Canon, it will in all likelihood be an EF-S one and therefore any lens that has EF in the title will fit.

List of Canon EF-S cameras

7D
20D
30D
40D
50D
60D
300D
350D
400D
450D
500D
550D
600D
650D
1000D
1100D

The millimetres. This is focal length; I could go into the physics and optics of focal lengths ... but you need a working knowledge, not theoretical physics knowledge. Put simply, the further away the thing you want to focus on is, the bigger the biggest number has to be. It gets a little bit complicated by size of the object – far away from you but huge needs a shorter focal length than far away and tiny – and landscapes mess it up completely (you actually use short focal lengths, I often use around about 18mm, because the subtle difference is you’re not focusing on something far away, you’re just trying to keep a long distance in focus. It’s a depth of field task instead, so short focal length and small aperture is best. The point you actually focus is often quite close to you.) Lenses with long focal lengths are telephoto lenses, lenses with short focal lengths are wide angles – the exact point where they become telephotos or wide angles is not entirely clear.

Focal length has an effect on object size and field of view. Telephotos magnify images relative to where you were in relation to the object – the photo of the little bird won’t be the dot that you saw, it will take up the photo if you used the right focal length. Wide angles will minify – if you took a photo of an object with a wide angle, it will appear as though you stood further back when taking it. Telephotos have a narrow field of view; it can pick out the bird, but won’t capture much of the tree surrounding it. Wide angles do the opposite, they get a lot of the scene, sometimes more than we can actually see – I’ve take a few images where I was unable to see my feet in reality, but in the photo my feet are at the bottom of it.

The smaller number listed is the minimum focal length – in this case, 55mm – and the larger one is the maximum focal length – 200mm here. If you are using a camera with a crop sensor (basically not a full frame camera), you get something called crop factor, which means that whilst the actual focal length is as stated, the effective focal length (what it appears to be, and the focal length you would need to reproduce the photo on a full frame camera) is larger – in fact, the crop factor larger. For example, Canon consumer models have crop factor 1.6; if I was using an actual focal length of 100mm, it would appear to be 160mm – 100 x 1.6.

Where two numbers are listed, it is a zoom lens; to get the amount of zoom, divide the larger number by the small one – here, the zoom is 2.6. Some lenses are prime lenses – they have a fixed focal length. In that case, only one focal length would be listed (50mm is quite a common one, there are plenty of others) and obviously there is no zoom.

The F-numbers. These are apertures, or at least they are the biggest apertures that can be achieved – bizarrely, a small numbers means a big aperture, and vice versa. The lens only affects the biggest aperture, you will be able to get the smallest aperture the camera is capable of on any lens. Where there are two numbers listed like this, it means the biggest aperture varies with focal length – you can get an f4 at 55mm, but only an f5.6 at 200mm, and some number between the two at focal lengths in between. Some lenses are called constant aperture, or the biggest aperture does not vary with focal length.

Maximum aperture size can be a reasonable indicator of how good a lens is in low-light. Say I am able to hand hold a camera at 1/50th of a second (just written as 1/50, commonly) – this is the slowest shutter speed I can use without getting motion blur. If I can have an aperture of f2.8 at this shutter speed, I need less light in what I’m photographing than if I were using it with an aperture of f5.6, because f2.8 is bigger and lets more light in. For event photography, this may matter to you. Good low light, you need f2.8 or better really. An f4 is average – not the best, but you could do worse.

The extra bits. These are very variable between lenses, and also between seller – some list things that others don’t. They are numerous and I won’t list them all, but I will go through a few of the common ones:

VR = vibration reduction. It’s Nikon’s name for what Canon calls image stabilisation (IS), Sigma calls optical stabilisation (OS) and Tamron called vibration control (VC); it means that the lens can compensate for some shaking when in use. Whether or not you need it depends upon what you’re photographing (if everything you shoot will be at 1/1000 shutter speed, it’s not going to matter; conversely, if it’ll always be mounted on a tripod, IS can actually be detrimental) and how steady you are (the general rule is you can hand hold with the shutter speed of at least the effective focal length; for example, if you are using an effective focal length of 50mm, you can hand hold at 1/50 at the slowest – the knock on effect being shaking is more important for longer focal lengths. But that is only general; I have very shaky hands and stabilisation is important to me, unless it’s in a tripod lens. Some people are very steady and can hand hold at slow shutter speeds.)

USM = ultra-sonic motor. You may see this on some Canon lenses; it basically means the focus motor is quieter than normal. Can be useful if you’re photographing skittish animals and so forth.

L = Canon’s ‘luxury lens’ range – very good optics, but also very expensive, I wouldn’t worry about this yet.

DX = Nikon incorporate this to signify a lens that was designed for a crop sensor, so that people buying for full frame (FX) will know that it may cause some problems. EF-S is used to signify this in Canon, with the addition of it actually won’t fit a non-crop camera.

If you ever come across one you don’t know, just Google ‘[code] lens marking’.

Now that the lecture is over...

Both of those lenses are fine. Not the best, but also perfectly decent and you’ll get good shots with them. Can you find any with a bit longer focal length? Also, I know Canon do a really good lens – the 50mm f1.8 – which is reasonably cheap; it wouldn’t have the flexibility of a telephoto zoom, but it may be a good option for you if a match exists within Nikon lenses.

Thanks again for such a great reply! I also think ive been swung towards Canon as it seems like their stuff is generally cheaper (I dont know if this is true but it certainly seems used Canon equipment is cheaper than the Nikon equivalent) So im probably going to get a Canon EOS 1000D and a Canon EF-S 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 Autofocus Zoom Lens which im told would be ideal for a beginner and its cheap so it seems like my best option! Also, im not too worried about the ideal lens for me wanting to do club photography just yet, I just want something so that I can get into it a bit first

If anyone has any extra advice then please feel free, it would be much appreciated!

EDIT - The lens I was playing on buying for the Canon sold, I also managed to get hold of the D3000 for about £30 less than the 1000D and a lens for about £40 (although it is Sigma) im sure itll be fine to get started with, right!?

[hypercaine.]

Ok so just wanted to make an updated post about how ive been getting on; I received the camera and lens today, unfortunately I didnt read the description that well and it didnt include a bag or memory card (wouldntve been a deal breaker anyway) so when I opened it up all excited ready to have a play I realised I had to go into town and buy a memory card...

But anyway, the camera seems good and well looked after given it is used. Ive took a few decent pictures already and have been reading up on how to manually editing the settings and stuff but I have came across a few problems:
- The lens doesnt have VR or image stabilisation which ive already discovered is a problem! But at least now I know for definite!
- Maybe this one is just me but with manual focus it seems quite difficult to actually get the focus spot on when youre looking through the viewfinder? The lens does have autofocus but I was just messing around with it and found that.
- You see some great photos on the internet and im wondering whether how much of it is down to editing in Lightroom or something?
- Finally, depth of field; am I being too ambitious with my lens? I cant seem to change it at all ready, ive tried changing all possible settings just randomly and nothing seems to really work. Do I need a specific type of lens or can you do it with anything if the settings are right?

Thanks once again!

[unruly1986]

Does the D3000 have an `aperture priority` mode?

This will change your DOF. Stick it in that and experiment..!

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam...-priority.html

[evening sunrise]

(Original post by hypercaine.)
Ok so just wanted to make an updated post about how ive been getting on; I received the camera and lens today, unfortunately I didnt read the description that well and it didnt include a bag or memory card (wouldntve been a deal breaker anyway) so when I opened it up all excited ready to have a play I realised I had to go into town and buy a memory card...

But anyway, the camera seems good and well looked after given it is used. Ive took a few decent pictures already and have been reading up on how to manually editing the settings and stuff but I have came across a few problems:
- The lens doesnt have VR or image stabilisation which ive already discovered is a problem! But at least now I know for definite!
- Maybe this one is just me but with manual focus it seems quite difficult to actually get the focus spot on when youre looking through the viewfinder? The lens does have autofocus but I was just messing around with it and found that.
- You see some great photos on the internet and im wondering whether how much of it is down to editing in Lightroom or something?
- Finally, depth of field; am I being too ambitious with my lens? I cant seem to change it at all ready, ive tried changing all possible settings just randomly and nothing seems to really work. Do I need a specific type of lens or can you do it with anything if the settings are right?

Thanks once again!

Sorry for not replying earlier, some what distracted by the task of relocating my self, my wife and the two of the four kids still at home from the east midlands to the north east as my wife and I both become students in Sept/Oct.

I did mention VR. Put it down to experience.

DOF is dependent upon.

a) Aperture
b) focal length
c) distance to subject

in terms of how disassociated the background is from the subject then the distance between subject and the background for any combination of the above is material.

The DOF is also slightly different between a FF and crop sensor for the same values of a) b) and c) above but the difference is small and which sensor size has the small advantage depends upon what your shooting with what.

This why I mentioned that the 55-200 @ 55 will give a shallowest DOF when compared to a 18-55 @ 55.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html Have a play with this. I have a version on my iphone.

You will be able to see what DOF you will get for different values of a) b) and c) on your D3000.

SOme of the pictures you will see will be heavily developed and edited and some, despite looking quite remarkable will be not far straight off the camera.
I have HDR images where my whole objective was to leverage the HDR but for the image to look totally normal. Other do their HDR to create "from the planet zog" images, or at least how the visual apparatus of someone from the planet zog might view the british landscape.


PS. Look in your manual and up the sharpness of your picture control to 6 or 7, the factory setting is very soft.

When you have enough light and you do not need shallow DOF your lens is actually sharpest at F8.

If you are not trying to burst at 3fps then try RAW and have a play with the image in View Nx2 which comes free with the camera. If you did not receive a copy you can download it from

Nikon.

Good luck