what DSLR camera would you guys recommend for a newbie to photography?

what DSLR camera would you guys recommend for a newbie to photography?

Good photography is in the eye and skill of the photographer. I'd hesitate to recommend a specific camera to someone unless I knew their interests and preferences well. What I would recommend is a visit to a good local camera shop, if there's one nearby. Name-brand DSLRs all deliver well on the hardware end and are capable of capturing high-quality images, but the feel and handling characteristics/ergonomics sometimes differ greatly among them. I'd find a shop where the salespeople are willing to spend some time discussing the features and differences and letting you handle some cameras to see which one feels best to you.

 

You may spend a few more dollars locally than you would online, but probably not many. Name-brand photographic gear almost always sells for the MSRP, and sometimes the online shipping and handling costs offset the sales tax that you pay when buying locally. Besides, it's worth it to support local businesses that provide personal service and whose people will be there to answer questions and  help you understand products before you buy. About the only time a significant on-line discount comes into play is when a vendor offers a kit that includes some third-party lenses. I'm not knocking third-party lenses, mind you; some of them are very good, and offer features similar or equal to camera-brand lenses at a fraction of the price. It's always good to check user-reviews before buying, especially when shopping for non-camera-brand lenses. Google for them, or go the B&H web site to read the ones there.

 

 

 

 

Has anyone ordered prints from Adorama before?

Has anyone ordered prints from Adorama before?

 

I have not - I use myphotopipe - they are great.

 

So I thought someone told me to just put a UV filter on my lens and just leave it there as it will also protect the lens glass.  I was at Dodd yesterday and they told me I shouldn't do that.  Do you guys have filters that you leave on the lens at all times?  What kind?

Did the person at Dodd give any reason why you shouldn't leave a UV filter on your lens full-time?

 

I've never before heard of a camera shop employee advising someone not to keep a UV filter on the lens to protect it, and everything I've read/heard from experienced professionals says do keep a filter on the lens full-time. A good-quality UV/haze filter will not adversely affect image quality, and unless you're working entirely in the protected environment of a private studio, the potential lens-damaging hazards you can encounter are myriad. Sacrificing a $20 filter may well prevent ruining an $800 lens.

 

The only time I remove the UV filter, other than to clean it, is if I'm using another filter like a polarizer. Stacking filters, especially on wide lenses, can cause vignetting.

He said it can add unwanted color to photos.  I think specifically he said you can get a yellowish tint, particularly in pictures of people.

Some UV/Haze filters can have a warming effect on photos. There's variation among manufacturers, and among different UV and haze filters from a given manufacturer. If you're buying in a camera store where you can actually look at the products, try placing various filters side-by-side on a piece of white paper, and the differences likely will be apparent. I think filters marked as "Haze" may typically have more warming effect than those marked "UV" and/or "Lens Protection."

 

Keep in mind that most photo-processing software is capable of correcting color balance and can remove any color cast imparted by a protective filter.

Adorama and B&H operate Manhattan storefronts and are the reputable NYC mail order companies.  They are closed on Saturdays and for all Jewish holidays.  I can't warn people enough to avoid ordering from any company operating out of Brooklyn (Cambridge Camera, Abe's of Maine, etc.).  They run scams and are in cahoots with the judges so you aren't going to win in small claims court.  My first mail order purchase, back before the internet, was from one of these places and they switched out the name-brand lens in a kit for a generic lens.  This is just the beginning with these clowns. 

 

 

The time to not use a protective filter is with cheap lenses that can be easily replaced. I don't see the point in spending $30 on a filter for a $150 lens. On the Canon 18-55mm IS lens, I don't use a filter very often. The reason is because it's a cheap lens that is easy to replace (I'm on my second one right now). I use it as a beater walk-around lens. It has high quality optics, but the mechanical construction is a disaster. On top of this, the front element rotates. It seems filters get stuck pretty easily on these types of lenses, and wrenching that weak front ring can't be good for the focusing motor. Put a polarizer on that thing in cold weather, and you'll see what I'm talking about. It gets stuck pretty easily. The cheap mechanical quality is probably more worrisome than a few scratches on the glass (most minor scratches don't actually affect real world image quality). That lens is just not built to last. It's a throwaway. That's how most entry-level lenses for DSLR's are these days. I can see arguments against spending money on protective filters if the lens is only built to last a few years anyway.

 

Optical construction has gone up over the years (particularly on zoom lenses), but body construction has gone down. No lenses built today will outlast the OEM prime lenses from the 60's and 70's. You'll see more Super-Takumars 20 years from now than any consumer lens currently being manufactured by Nikon and Canon. I think Canon purposely makes their consumer lenses crappy so people enventually have to upgrade to L lenses to get real build quality and reliability. After your first bad experience with a consumer lens crapping out, you automatically desire L lenses. The optics are not always much better, but the build quality is night and day. It's really unfortunate that Canon hardly has any decent quality consumer lenses left (at least for under $500). Canon's 28-135mm IS and 50mm f/1.4 are some of of the only consumer lenses still being made to high quality standards, and their days are numbered. The 28-135mm is being replaced by a much lower quality 18-135mm zoom lens and the 50mm f/1.4 is greatly outsold by its lower quality brother, the 50mm f/1.8 Mark II (there was a Mark I version of this lens that was much better quality back in the 90's). So, in many ways, lenses are getting worse. Why use UV filters if the camera lens is just a cheap plastic glass holder that is bound to break down on you?

 

For most lenses above $400, I'd use a protective filter (a good quality multi-coated one from Hoya, Tiffen, or OEM). For $600-$1000 and up pro lenses, I think it makes sense to have a good-quality UV filter on at all times for protection. Those lenses cost an arm and a leg, and they're built to last a very long time with proper care. You could have that Canon L lens for a lifetime.

 

In the old days when lens coatings were less flare-resistant, a lens hood many times worked as a protector. Lens hoods have gone out of style as lens coatings have greatly improved to control stray light and flare. Still, if nothing else, a hood can offer additional protection.

Adorama and B&H operate Manhattan storefronts and are the reputable NYC mail order companies.  They are closed on Saturdays and for all Jewish holidays.  I can't warn people enough to avoid ordering from any company operating out of Brooklyn (Cambridge Camera, Abe's of Maine, etc.).  They run scams and are in cahoots with the judges so you aren't going to win in small claims court.  My first mail order purchase, back before the internet, was from one of these places and they switched out the name-brand lens in a kit for a generic lens.  This is just the beginning with these clowns.

 

I'll put a good word in for B&H. I've always had good service and their turnaround is very fast.

What's the best way to mount a picture to an uncut mat without damaging the photo?  Glue stick?

... It seems filters get stuck pretty easily on these types of lenses, and wrenching that weak front ring can't be good for the focusing motor. Put a polarizer on that thing in cold weather, and you'll see what I'm talking about. It gets stuck pretty easily ...

 

For most lenses above $400, I'd use a protective filter (a good quality multi-coated one from Hoya, Tiffen, or OEM). For $600-$1000 and up pro lenses, I think it makes sense to have a good-quality UV filter on at all times for protection. Those lenses cost an arm and a leg, and they're built to last a very long time with proper care. You could have that Canon L lens for a lifetime.

 

In the old days when lens coatings were less flare-resistant, a lens hood many times worked as a protector. Lens hoods have gone out of style as lens coatings have greatly improved to control stray light and flare. Still, if nothing else, a hood can offer additional protection.

 

I picked up a set of filter wrenches somewhere, maybe mail order from somewhere like Porters. They work really well, without risking damage to the lens or filter; they're round and gently springy, and you just use finger pressure to pinch them tight. Put one on the filter and the other on the lens filter ring, and every stuck filter I've encountered has come off easily without torquing the lens mechanism. Inexpensive and effective.

 

Loitering at the local camera shop the other day, I mentioned to one of the guys the color cast problem with some UV filters. I got out my Hoya 62mm UV filter and laid it on a sheet of white paper, and the warming effect was very visible. He took a ProMaster UV filter off the rack and placed it beside the Hoya, and the ProMaster produced very little - almost no - color cast.

 

Hoya        = $ 7.95

ProMaster = $14.00

 

I got out my wallet and said, "Gimme dat."

 

I usually keep my lens hood in place, both for protection and because sometimes I end up shooting close to the sun or other bright light sources. For lenses 28mm and wider, vignetting from a lens hood can be a problem; I bought a Nikon collapsible rubber lens hood that fits a 52mm filter ring for that situation.

 

What's the best way to mount a picture to an uncut mat without damaging the photo?  Glue stick?

 

I haven't done that because I use a cut-out (window) mat on top of all my framed photos, and attach the photo to the window mat with self-adhesive archival linen hinging tape from Lineco. It will peel off most surfaces if you do it slowly and carefully.

 

For surface mounting there are cold-mount peel-and-stick materials that are advertised as archival that you can use to avoid the heat of a dry-mount press (or the expense, if you plan to buy one), and I've seen spray adhesives advertised in the same manner. Not having used these, I don't have any pointers or recommendations.

 

 

 

 

 

Help! What's wrong?

 

Every photo I take, in any mode, comes out something like this. I am using a Nikon D5100 with an 18-55 VR lens. The camera and lens came togther as a kit. This started happening two days ago. Is it broken, or am I doing something wrong?

 

If that happens even in Auto mode, where there's practically nothing you can do to influence camera settings, I'd say it's camera malfunction.

 

The only other possibility I can think of right now is a defective SD card. I suggest reformatting the card and trying again, and if you still get bad results, try the card in another camerra if one is available, and see what happens.

 

If you take a photo and then view it on the camera's LCD screen, does it look like the one you posted or does it look OK? I'm just trying to narrow down the possibilities.

 

I actually really like that image.  It's a postmodern critique of the flag. 

The image is the same on the camera's LCD screen. The live view is fine, though a review of the literature seems to indicate that the live view and the photos are unrelated, and I don't know if they even use the same imager.

 

 

^^or Jasper Johns on crack.

Ah yes, that's the better analogy.  A 21st century Jasper Johns.

 

Eigth I suggest something pretty simple -- just take the batteries out and put them back in and see if the thing reboots. 

 

In other news, Robin Imaging in Cincinnati will cease black & white and E-6 processing at the end of this month.  That will leave the city's only pro lab processing only C-41.  I have to call and make sure that they're still going to process medium format and 4x5. 

 

 

 

Okat I just called.  Yes they will still be processing medium format and 4x5 C-41.

Okat I just called.  Yes they will still be processing medium format and 4x5 C-41.

 

My use of film ground to a halt a few years ago when the only local pro lab to do decent work shut down because there wasn't enough film work to pay the bills. I was a big fan of Fuji Provia 100F 120 and 220 film because it has a reasonable contrast range and fine grain, and scans exceptionally nicely. I've contemplated sending film to Chicago, but haven't tried it, and I've even thought about shopping for some used processing equipment (temperature control, etc.) and doing it in my long-unused darkroom. Forty years ago I did E3 with good results, but it's time-consuming and difficult to control temperature well enough without professional lab equipment.

 

Fuji Reala 100 is C-41, and I really like it in a variety of situations. Fine grain, excellent exposure latitude, faithful color and contrast rendering, and good scanning. Again, I haven't shot it in years because no one local will process it in medium format any more.

for whatever it's worth last week there was an interesting article in the NY Times about the revival of film:

 

Just When You Got Digital Technology, Film Is Back

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/technology/personaltech/film-photographys-revival-in-a-digital-world.html

By JENNA WORTHAM

Published: May 30, 2012

 

I've got 40 sheets of 4x5 chrome film in my refrigerator that obvoiusly I will be shooting before the end of the month.  I have about 150 sheets of b&w that there's no way I'll get through, but developing 4x5's at home is pretty easy if you happen to have a basement laundry room with a drain in the middle like I do. 

 

Fuji Reala was a jump over what existed before, but Kodak Ektar is probably even better.  It came out in 2008 and will be the final color film Kodak ever brought to market.  It's a shame film is going out because it kept getting better and better.  I have the Epson V400(?) scanner, the good one that costs about $500.  The 4x5 scans from it are pretty good.  If you're going to do prints for an exhibit, you probably still want to get drum scans.

 

 

Yeah, don't screw around with E-6 in a home Jobo processor, from what I hear.  I did develop C-41 with one of those and it was quick and easy, but I don't think the results were as good as a pro lab.  I never did a side-by-side though. 

It was about 1970 that I processed some 35mm Ektachrome that I shot on a trip to Mackinac Island, and I think the process then was E3. I bought a Kodak half-gallon kit, just enough for the five rolls I had. I used a Nikor tank that I loaded in a dark closet, and my lab was the kitchen. I started by mixing the solutions - maybe ten steps in all - and standing the containers in a cooler chest filled just to their tops with warm water that I kept checking and replenishing to maintain 80 degrees F. It took about an hour to get everything stabilized so it would hold that temperature long enough. If I remember correctly, the color developer was the fussiest step; it had to be maintained at 80F, plus or minus 1/2 degree, for ten minutes. Between agitations, I let the Nikor tank rest in the water in the cooler chest. The preparation of chemicals and processing of film took a whole evening well into the night.

 

The results looked just as good as any I got back from Kodak, and held up well for quite a few years. I haven't looked at them in a while; if I can locate them readily I'll put them on my list to scan and post (if they're still worth looking at).

I ran across this utility when I was looking for a way to modify the date stamp of a bunch of images that I took with an erroneous setting of the month part of the date. (I messed up the camera's time setting.)

 

http://www.bulkrenameutility.co.uk/Main_Intro.php

 

It's *free*. The company that distributes it has a PC backup program that is their real money maker.

 

Here is a screen shot from the web site. It gives you the idea. For example, you can replace like named strings in file names with a different string, or you can institute your own numbering pattern of a group of files.

 

 

 

Does anyone use the photo editing software Aperture?  Thoughts on it?

^I don't use it but I've heard good things about it - from what I can tell, it works as a lighter version of Adobe Bridge and Photoshop Elements.

I use a MacBook Pro and Nikon Transfer to download pics to my computer.  I just insert the SD card directly into the computer and select the option to delete the pics from the SD card upon transfer.  For some reason when I reinsert the SD card into my computer the pics will show that they are on the card but when I put the card in the camera it says its a blank card.  Anyone ever have this happen to them?

^ do the images show up in your trash bin? If so, delete all and you should be good.