Helping a friend choose a camera - Part 4

My friend now hovers between the Canon 350D and 400D:

"Been alternatively working and researching on the net following your latest e-mail! This http://www.cameralabs.com/ in particular has been an excellent reference. These are my latest thoughts (which aren't that surprising, but the emphasis may have changed...)

1. To buy a EOS 400D for either £388 (body only) or for £449 (with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6II)

2. To buy the EOS 350 with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6II for £350

I'm increasingly swayed by option two in the sense that this will get my a v. good 'budget' camera with 'average' lens at a v. good price. The 400D has the 10 megapixels, but as you mention, the extra megapixels are not really relevant unless you want to do some seriously large prints etc. The other key disadvantage that has consistently come up about the 350 is that is has a measly sized viewfinder...is that something to discourage?

The question - possible the penultimate one is could you give a few (budget) examples of lenses you think would be worth considering investing in. You broadly - usefully - mentioned a few areas in the last e-mail without naming names.

A: PORTRAIT LENSES

B: PRIME LENSES

C: ???"

ps: in an earlier exchange, you mentioned investing in books... which book(s) would you recommend be useful?


My reply:

If the 350D fits the bill then I wouldn't worry about the viewfinder. The main thing is to get started with a body and build up a good collection of canon lenses. You can upgrade the body later and still use the lenses you invest in now. My Nikon D100 had a 'measly' viewfinder as well, but it wasn't that bad. They are just smaller than conventional 35mm SLRs (because the digital sensor is smaller than the traditional 35mm film frame). If you are worried about it go to Jessops and just ask to have a look.

One problem with the 18-55 is that it has a small minimum aperture (f3.5). You could invest in a prime lens or two to go along with it that could be used in low light situations or for shallow focus/depth of field. The canon 50mm/f1.8 is only about £70 and is pretty good (I use one). On the 350D it would actually be the equivalent of about 80mm on a normal SLR (because the sensor is smaller you have to multiply the standard focal length by 1.6 to get the equivalent on the 350D). I use the Tamron 90mm macro as a portrait lens (but my sensor is the same size as normal film - so-called 'full frame'). That Tamron would be equivalent to about 140mm on the 350D (not so useful for portraits for some).

Thus the 50mm/1.8 would make an excellent portrait lens (with it wide open you could be a reasonable distance from the sitter and blur the background).

You could also get a set of extension tubes to do macro photography (Kenko do them for about £100). I use these myself sometimes with the 50mm and with a Lensbaby (but that's another story).

If you want a more 'normal' prime lens you could go for a 28mm or 35mm prime. The 35/f2 is £175 and the 28/f2.5 is £130. You will get better results with primes than with the zoom in terms of sharpness. It's just a question of what you get for the money. A prime can be built to better specifications than a zoom at the same price because the optics are more complex in a zoom and have more work to do.

I would hold off getting anything wider than 28mm until you have played around with the 18mm end of the zoom. See if you like wide angle stuff. Some people do and some don't.

Another option would be to go for a longer zoom to complement the 18-55. There is a 55-200 for £124 but I wouldn't bank on excellent quality at this price. You really have to spend the money to get quality in zooms.

Another nice lens is the canon 60mm macro which you could use for close-up work and portraits. Not available new any more (cost about 300 I think). The new 60mm macro EFS costs £255. EFS lenses cannot be used on full frame cameras so if in future you decided to go full frame you couldn't use this lens.

There's an EF 50mm macro though for £175 (don't know anything about it).

This is already getting complicated again...

As to books there are loads, but it depends on the software you use. Photoshop or Lightroom books are useful. There are also 2 common ways of shooting digital: jpeg and raw. Start off with jpeg as it is easier and quicker, but then experiment with raw mode. The camera comes with a raw image editor. Believe me it makes a huge difference in quality over jpeg and allows you to correct mistakes pretty easily. Raw files are bigger, but they contain all the information that was collected by the camera when the shot was taken rather than the processed version (jpeg).

Books not about software depend on what your subject matter is going to be.

Helping a friend choose a camera - Part 3

The saga continued with my friend wondering about the differences between a 350D and 400D:

"As ever, thanks for this information - very helpful. As a quick response, I think given your suggestions, that a CANON camera would be the forward.

"I've read up a bit - and have been sold for the past few weeks on the idea of the 400D... Canon EOS-400D 18-55 Kit for £449 offered by warehouseexpress seems the most competitive. If I went for just the body then (£388)... what lens would you suggest thinking about? The plan would probably be to invest in an additional lense around Christmas, money permitting.

"Having said that, do you think that, all things considered, that the 350D would be the way forward, given the price? Is the money saved worth getting the 350D over the 400D in your opinion??"

My reply:

400 or 350D:

It depends on how big you would like to print. With a 6MP camera I used to get very good A4 size and OK A3 size prints. But it depends also on subject matter. For example I blew up a portrait of my daughter to 24" by 36" and it was great. That was taken with a Nikon D100 (a now relatively obsolete 6MP camera). However, if you like landscapes or nature photography detail is often more important and this would not be possible. You would start to see the cracks in the sensor technology at A3 size.

The newer 8MP cameras can more easily do A3 or Super A3 size (13" by 19") - and you can get printers of this size - for everyday subject matter. The 10MP 400D will give you a bit more. If you don't want to make prints bigger than super A3 then the 350D would probably be adequate. Of course the 400D is a better camera, but you would probably not notice the difference at these sizes. In this case it might be better to use the money saved to invest in other equipment. I have the near 13MP canon 5D and it can do 16X20" no problem.

How are you going to print the results? This is key to the decision.

In terms of lenses it depends on what you are going to use the camera for.

The 18-55mm zoom that comes with these cameras is an average all round lens for everyday shooting. Might be OK for a while, but the sensor is probably a lot better than the lens. A good lens makes a huge difference to the quality of the results especially if you print reasonably large (bigger than A4). If you like portraits you should invest in a portrait lens (longer focal length). Landscapes wide angles are often best. When I got the canon 5D I couldn't afford a 'good' lens so I just bought a cheap 50mm (£70). The Canon prime lenses (i.e. non-zoom) are all pretty good (much better than the cheap zooms), but then you lose some of the flexibility a zoom gives. My zoom (the canon 24-105mm L costs £700) but it isn't 'better' than the 50mm prime and it weighs a ton. That portrait I was talking about above was also taken with a cheap 50mm Nikon lens, but these prime lenses are actually excellent value for money.

Difficult isn't it?

Helping a friend choose a camera - Part 2

Following up my earlier advice, my friend has now decided on a digital SLR:

"Also have managed to get up to £600 to invest in a camera. I believe that this was the camera you recommended: Canon 400D.

Do you think it's worth taking advantage of the packages that they are offering with the camera... or just to wait and save up for an additional lens at a later date?

Any advice - as always - would be well received!"

This is how the advice continued:

You certainly couldn't go wrong with this as a starting kit and at 10 megapixels you could blow up fairly large prints. A cheaper option would be the one below it at 8 megapixels (the canon 350D). You can get the same lens [18-55mm kit lens] with the 350D body for £350 at warehouseexpress.com (they are almost always a lot cheaper than Jessops - the 400D is only £438 without lens from them). That would leave you with £250 for other stuff that you will undoubtedly need or want later (such as a tripod, maybe another lens, filters, printer, memory cards, books etc...) Digital is a big investment and it doesn't stop with the camera.

You can pick up lenses and stuff on ebay and at various photo stores online that sell used goods. I can point you in the right direction. Used from photo stores is best as you get a warranty and you can send stuff back if you don't think it is up to scratch (not so on ebay).

Another DSLR system I would consider at the moment for a beginner on a budget would be to look at Pentax. They have a few nice cameras and the beauty of them is that all the old Pentax K Mount lenses will work with them. So you could build up a collection of good lenses (used/cheap). The Pentax prime lenses are excellent (although manual focus) and can be had very cheaply.

The camera is no slouch either.

The 6 megapixel Pentax K100D is £398 with 18-55 zoom lens.
The 10 megapixel K10D is £600 with the same lens.

It still depends on what you mainly want to do (or want to do in future). I think the best bet is still probably the 350D or 400D. If you get the 350D you get the zoom and camera for £350. Then you can try it out and decide whether you need something else. You will also need to buy a few memory cards (cheap online). Everything else comes with the camera. I also use Canon cameras so it might help later on if there is a problem as they have similar controls and so on.

Stay tuned for part 3.

Garry Winogrand video

Here is an interesting 10 minute video showing master street photographer Garry Winogrand at work.

http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=152

He has an interesting style and makes some interesting comments about his work and street photography in general.

More on street photography...

Following the recent post on street photography there is a free online issue of JPG magazine dedicated to street photography here.

There were several comments on the Yahoo list on my previous street post (scroll down a little). You can read the thread here.

I have been using analogue rangefinders recently for street photography. Here are a couple of recent shots taken in Aalborg, Denmark (Leica M6, Voigtlander Color Skopar Classic 35mm lens).

Street musician

Delta 400 rated at 400 developed in Prescysol EF.

Lost something?

Neopan 400 rated at 400 developed in Prescysol EF.

These were scanned on a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400. The Delta shot had some Noise Ninja to reduce grain. I am finding that different films produce different levels of grain aliasing. Ilford HP5 and Delta 400 seem to be the worst with my scanner. Neopan 400 is fine as it is.

It is interesting to me that using the Ricoh GR Digital has led me in a round about way back to using film and rangefinders. Ever since I got the GR Digital I just cannot face lugging around the Canon 5D and all those heavy lenses. The Canon is now used more as a studio type camera.

Helping a friend choose a camera

A friend of mine asked me recently what camera to buy on a very limited budget. He is thinking of getting into photography. At the moment he has a Minolta SLR and one lens. I found it surprisingly difficult to give him advice seeing as there are so many options available. He also wanted something versatile and something that would not be obsolete very quickly. A tall order these days.

Anyway here is the advice I gave him...

This is a tricky one and there isn't a straightforward answer. I can only give you hints as to different scenarios.

In sum:

You need an all round camera as you want to use it for various things from macro/closeups to portraits and environmental/street etc.

(There isn't a single camera that does all these things well.)

(No digital camera has longevity. They are pretty obsolete within 6 months although digital slrs are a bit better.)

You need something with automatic controls, but that as you get better you can bypass these and be more creative. You need a system that will expand as you do if necessary.

You need something relatively cheap.

You have basically 3 simple options (in order of complexity). The first 2 are digital the last analogue:

1. Buy a digital compact like a Canon or Fuji. Canon are pretty much one of the best value/quality companies in the digital world at the moment or at least no-one can really beat them. Make sure it has a 'macro' facility to do close ups. It would probably be better with a zoom lens - most of them are. Make sure it is optical zoom rather than digital zoom (digital zoom is simply a trick using software, not real and images are degraded). I think these almost always have a built in flash.

You need to decide how big the prints will be and whether you will do the prints yourself. If you want to go large (say bigger than A4) you need at least 6 megapixels (MP). A4 and less and 5-6MP is OK. Most digitals are 6MP + anyhow nowadays.

You can get 8MP compacts but they suffer from other problems such as digital noise and sometimes there is a big trade-off between megapixels and image quality for a given sized print. These 8mp compacts also suffer in low light situations. 6MP is probably a safer bet and it will be cheaper.

2. If you want to grow as a photographer then you probably need a system. This means getting a digital SLR (DSLR), but I don't think this is within your budget. You will almost certainly be looking at second hand.

If you did go this route then 6-10MP is easily possible and the quality is head and shoulders above a compact digital.

I have used both Canon and Nikon systems and both are good. You could start with say a Canon digital rebel and a good zoom (like the Tamron 28-75mm). But I think you would be looking at >£400 (out of your budget).

Maybe something like this:

Canon 350D

But the lenses that come with these kits are usually awful. It's better to get just a (used) body and buy a used Tamron 28-75mm on ebay. The lenses make all the difference. If you have a bad lens it doesn't matter how good the camera is, the shots will never be that great.

The advantage of getting a DSLR is that you are buying into a system of lenses, bodies and software etc. So when you upgrade your body, you keep your lenses, flash and so on and put them on the new upgraded body. So you stick with one manufacturer (Canon/Nikon/Pentax) and invest in good lenses. When the body is obsolete the lenses will still be OK if they were good in the first place. You can also do macro with a special close-up filter costing about £20 or eventually invest in a macro lens (I have a Tamron 90mm macro - excellent but costs around £300).

DSLRs also hold their value a bit better than compacts which sink like a stone.

With option 1 or 2 you also need to buy some memory cards and possibly a card reader.

3. Stick with analogue. You could use your current camera (but bear in mind Minolta have stopped making cameras so it is hard to upgrade) or buy a pretty good used Canon/Nikon/Pentax SLR and a couple of good lenses for much less than £200. You could get say a Nikon F80 and a 50mm Nikon autofocus lens for about £150 tops. I used to have this and it is top quality in terms of output. You could still get a digital SLR later that uses the same lenses.

But then you would probably need a film scanner. You can get an Epson 4490 I think for £130 new. You would still have to process film (DIY or send it to a lab). This scanner is probably OK for A4 size prints. You could upgrade the scanner later.

(At the moment I am shooting B&W film and scanning. I haven't touched my 2 digitals for ages. Quality is on a par or even better. People just think you are strange or Luddite in some way.)

I am assuming that you will get an A4 photo printer (can be picked up pretty cheap - £50-100?) but the ink and paper is expensive. Alternatively you can use those booths at Jessops.

Let me know if any of this makes sense and I will try to elaborate on one or more of the options.

'Reading' Street Photography

I run a digital print exchange in Europe (see here). A couple of people send street photographs, but comments are often of the form 'I don't get it', 'not my sort of thing', 'can't comment'. This got me to thinking what is it about street photography that makes it hard to understand or to read? I think it is partly because there is a lot of mediocre street photography out there (as there is in all photographic genres) and people get tired of looking at endless pictures on Flickr type sites of people's backs, pictures of the photographer's friends fooling around, or action that is so far away that one can hardly make out what is going on.

I am no expert on this, but from studying it lately I think there are five basic elements in street photography that considered together help to understand what it is about. These elements are combined in various ways and different photographers emphasise one or more elements over the others. Masters of the genre such as Cartier-Bresson often are adept at all five at once.

The five elements are:

1. Composition: that is the picture is made up of interesting compositional elements that strike the viewer from an aesthetic point of view.

2. Portraiture: the picture contains some interesting face(s) or personalities and would work on the level of a portrait. Sometimes these are candid, sometimes not.

3. Decisive moment: there is something going on in the picture that was captured the moment the shutter was fired. Or there is some kind of story or narrative that can be guessed at from the scene.

4. Documentary: The picture has some documentary quality about it.

5. Engagement: there is some engagement with the photographer. Either there is someone looking at the photographer or someone in the shot has noticed the photographer and this adds to the drama in some way.

The expert street photographer also imposes his or her style over the 5 elements to give the pictures a distinctive look.

Examples from Juan Buhler's Water Molotov site (this is one of my favourite street photographers on the web):

An example of 1, 2 and 3.
An example of 1, 2 and 5.
An example of 1,2 and 4.

Travis Ruse has an excellent set of images taken on the NY subway. These fall mainly in my 1, 2 and 4 category:

An example of 1, 2, 4 and 5.
An example of 1, 2, 3 and 4.
An example of 1 and 4.

John Beeching is an experienced UK street photographer who contributes to the print exchange.

A classic compositional shot.
An example of types 1-4 (and possibly 5).
Type 2, 4 and 5.

Finally, some rather less proficient examples from my own work:

A more compositional shot


A combination of documentary, portrait and engagement


More of a portrait/compositional shot



A portrait and documentary shot


A combination of portraiture, decisive moment and documentary


I tend to favour portraits and candid shots in my street photography.

Those were my thoughts on the matter. Please comment.

Some more references:

http://www.streetphotography.co.uk/
In Public
Wikipedia entry
Photo.net
Streetphoto list

I would also recommend reading Bystander: A History of Street Photography by Westerbeck and Meyerowiitz.

A couple from Stratford

Just trying to get back into the swing of things with the Ricoh after a few weeks absence. Here are a couple of street shots from a recent trip to Stratford-Upon-Avon. My 'strike rate' is definitely down.

Street Entertainer



Man with Walking Stick



I have also recently purchased some old classic film rangefinders. A Yashica GS and a Canonet QL19. I am going to compare some film shots from these cameras with the GR Digital. I will post the results on the blog.