Pair em up

Sorry I think I berated the D5100 too much. The D5100 is really good. There are just two things I find annoying with it.

1. Size-  It's too small for comfort
2. Absence of autofocus motor

That apart, it's a super camera. I was about to sell mine but thought of spending more time with it and I think that I just miss using the cheaper AF lenses instead of AF-S lenses. But the camera doesn't let you down too much.

Paired with the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 it is awesome. Some people here in India are getting rid of these lenses along with their D70.  I'm using a friend's D70 that he doesn't like and I'm loving it (apart from the teeny weeny LCD that I'm not used to).

Nikon D70
6MP, CCD sensor with weak anti-aliasing filter. Do you know that Nikon has just "removed" the anti-aliasing filter in the new D7100. Why? Shoot with the weak anti-aliasing filter of the D70 and find out.

Pair em' up:
1. D5100 with  AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G
2. D70 with AF-S 35mm f./1.8G

Wish I had the AF 80-200 f/2.8D to pair up with the D70

Most importantly:
Learn to not avoid the hand shakes while clicking and save up a little using non-VR lenses. There are some interesting tricks that people have, check youtube for the same.

Sorry but some more suggestions

It's been a while since I've written for this blog. The last few months were spent misery and introspection. I sold the Canon 450D 18-55 IS + 55-250 IS and bought a Nikon D5100 with a 35mm f/1.8 DX
I realized that like most others, I was writing about something that I didn't understand really well. Although I tried to bring to the table as much as I knew but I think that I my knowledge was way too limited to be making statements like Nikon's images are "vivider"...bloody hell, the 450D could make just as vivid a photo if I set the white balance to that side.
450D had a dedicated ISO button which neither the D40 nor the D5100 possess. I realized how irritating it is to search for menus to set things up. D5100 does irritate me in this respect but it's a good camera.
I've also realized that in the digital world, you're not done with the image just by clicking it; post processing is essential and especially so for amateurs or even advanced amateurs...why just amateurs, the pros always do it.
I still swear by RAW format over JPEG. There's always room to play and recover that bit more in RAW that at times is impossible to do while shooting, especially so with a D5100 (maybe a D4 or a D3X would be different but I'll surely won't possess any of those for a quite some time to come).
35mm f/1.8G DX is a great lens but you'll feel limited if that's the only lens you have. At times you'll miss the 18-55 if nothing more. So keep the 18-55 VR around. I see a lot of people getting rid of it especially here in Chandigarh.
Canon 450 was definitely snappier...the thing I liked about it was that if you're using it in manual mode focus, the focus dot that comes in focus twinkles once and the camera beeps telling you which dot is in focus. I haven't been able to do that in my D5100 (maybe that's because I've kept the beeps on silent but I'm too lazy to locate this for now).
D5100 is a filing cabinet and you can easily get lost trying to set something up. BUT the D5100 has a good sensor they say. I clicked a pic with the 18-55VR at 18mm on a cloudy day at ISO 640: I must say it saddened me. I won't pump the iso beyond 500 although Nikon gets people to say that ISO 1600 image is usable with this camera...usable for what? a small facebook image...yeah ok that might be it.
With a fast carD, the d5100 is pretty quick though. I'm happy with it. My biggest pain and therefore a deal breaker has been the lack of a focussing motor. For this very reason, I can't autofocus using some cheap and amazing AF-Nikkor lenses. You have to have an AF-S lens to autofocus (Not good for me).
Another thing I dislike is the D5100's size. It's not light but it's small which makes it difficult to hold for me. Someone with smaller hands may like it but for me it's just difficult.
Bottomline, the D5100 is a great camera BUT if you've used a DSLR before and you're moving up, please don't buy it. Don't buy the D5100 or the D3100 or D3200 or D5200...they're all silly cameras for those that've used a DSLR for sometime. D5100 has good video though but keeping it in live view drains the battery quicker  than acceptable. Keep a spare, charged up battery with you.
Put in a bit more money and get the D90...PERIOD.

If you wanna use the D5100 anyway, get a fast card, a tripod. Keep the 18-55 VR and 35 f/1.8G DX. Get a SB-400 or the SB-600 if you can for indoor portraits. Don't buy a cheap tripod, better not to buy any instead of a cheap one, you'll just waste your money. Get at least a Vanguard Alta Pro Ph series.

More info comin up:

Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime lens

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens

Wow! Cheap was never this good.

I was very excited about the Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime lens because I'd read so many great reviews about it. So as chance would have it, I got to borrow it from a friend. 

You'll find tons of interesting reviews on this lens about the technical details but I wish to bring to your attention one aspect of this lens that is considered "understood". Most of us do not have full-frame DSLRs, for which you'll have to shell out a minimum of Rs. 1,27,000/- for just the camera-body (without any lens) of a Canon 5D Mark II. So any camera lesser than that will crop out the effective focal length by a given degree.

With a crop factor of 1.6x on my Canon Rebel xsi (450D), the effective focal length of this lens of this 50mm prime lens becomes 80mm. What do you do with a 80mm lens? You click portraits I guess. 

Honestly this is not a lens that you wanna roam around with outdoors (unless you own a full frame DSLR where you can actually use 50mm as 50mm). 

There's nothing much I can do with this lens except for asking people to pose and then click their pictures. Well such controlled portraits are impressive especially at f/2.2-3.0.

My buddy Vaibhav (50mm, f2.8,1/800) background is decently blurred but bokeh is nothing you can boast about. Still it's decent.

At f/1.8, pictures can get too hazy when the sharpness becomes isolated at some pinpointed region while blurring the rest. However focusing on the eyes and adjusting distance from the subject can get some very appealing results.

Anyway, the bottomline is that I went for a walk with this lens and returned with a new-found respect for the humble 18-55mm lens. Not till you've spent some quality time outside with the 50mm/1.8 (let's just call it 80mm/f/1.8) will you realize how nice and impressively wide an 18mm lens is. In any case they're meant to do different jobs. I now realize that the 18-55mm lens if pretty irreplaceable. 

50mm f/1.8 is good indoors but takes quite some time to master it there, else you'll end up with pics just as crappy as you would with 18-55 in the dark.

Here's a pic of my institute with the 18-55mm

IMTECH: the new building (18mm, HDR with my watermark "jesesa")

less camera Vs camera-less

  Let's face it, you can't carry your dSLR everywhere. There are days when I'm on my bike crossing some of the most amazing sights and wishing I had the camera with me. I reckon that I'm more receptive to sights at times I'm not carrying the camera. You know you can't underestimate the convenience of a P&S (point and shoot) camera. There's a reason they have a huge market. Not everyone wants to carry a bulky bag filled with a big camera and lenses (sure there are other reasons to not buy a dSLR). Say you're attending a wedding, you won't be carrying a dSLR unless you're getting paid for taking photos. 

  This is where point and shoots score. I'd go with something that's small in size, not like the Nikon P7000 or 7100 or the Canon G12 though even that'd be smaller than your dSLR. If you wanna take serious photos then a camera with a fast lens like the Panasonic DMC-LX5, Canon S95, Nikon P300 or the like will serve you best. Bottom-line is that don't go too crazy about zoom. Most big zoom point and shoots don't fare to so well fully zoomed in. Biggest downer is the fact that most P&S cameras do not have fast lenses even though many have big zoom lenses. By fast I mean with big aperture (or smaller f number. Click here to know about lens terminology). The big advantage with S95 and LX5 is that they're small, they have fast lenses and even shoot raw. P300 has the fastest lens but does not shoot raw images. Now that S100 is in market, the price of S95 has gone down quite a bit. Oh I digressed again...ok here goes, get a camera with a fast lens to that you can shoot good pictures even in less light.

Most P&S cameras fair fairly well in well lit areas. However as soon as you take them in a dark area, they begin to falter in that they can't help but boost ISO and slow down shutter speed to maintain the correct exposure (in simpler words 'to keep the picture acceptably bright'). When that happens your pictures suffer. They'll be grainy (High ISO) and blurred ( slow shutter). So if you have a fast lens, the camera will not have to slow down the shutter so much and you'll get better pictures.

Surely even a cell-phone camera works wonders so long as you can compose a picture well. At times a cell phone camera might be the only thing that you have at hand and let that not deter you from capturing a subject that you feel strongly for. Show the world what you see in things that they can't. So it's better to have a lesser camera than be camera-less but whatever you put your money into, do a thorough research of the correct parameters. For me, a P&S with a faster lens would take priority over bigger zoom any day.
Cheers!

Basic Lens Terminology

 Ever thought of this, why do we need a lens at all on a camera, why not just expose the sensor the outside world and capture images. Apart from the fact that if there were a sensor like that it'd get bloody dirty, well it is because the technology is developed such that you can use "thing" to focus images on different ways on the camera sensor to record it so that using the same sensor you can capture different kinds of photo by just changing the lens in front. Think of a single human eye, it has a single lens and a single sensor (the retina and the optic nerve). When you want to focus on nearby or faraway objects the muscles around the lens alter it's shape to bring the object in focus the same way you zoom-out, zoom-in and autofocus on the camera. Think of the pupils that dilate in less light and constrict in intense light to alter the amount of light to optimally focus on the subject, this is what the aperture does in a lens. Ok considering that it would be remiss of me to presume that you would know the working of the human eye but if you do, you'd certainly get an idea of what I'm talking about. Let's talk about DSLR lenses.

Quick overview of basic terminology:

FOCAL LENGTH:

Zoom lenses have a range of focal length for eg.18-55mm, it has a zoom ring using which you can shift between these two either ends of the extremes ie 18mm at most wide and 55mm at the telephoto or zoomed-in range. Apart from the zoom ring, there's the focus ring to focus on the subject manually (when you're not using autofocus).

Remember those W and T alphabets on your point&shoot camera meant to move the lens from Wide to Telephoto view.

• Wide: Zoomed-out view. As the name suggests, this is the wide view, you get more subjects into the frame

• Tele: Zoomed-in view. This is a narrow view with one or a few subjects occupying most of your frame.

APERTURE:

  Hmmm! it's basically the hole inside the lens through which light travels through the lenses and reaches the sensor where the image gets registered. The bigger the hole, the more the light enters and consequently for the same exposure, the faster the shutter speed you can use and lesser the chances of your image getting blurred.

  Recall the terminology 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, now you know that 18-55 is the minimum and maximum focal length range of the lens, the next figures tell you about the aperture or the hole inside the lens. Smaller the number, bigger the aperture and vice versa. Now you get the connection? when someone says 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, the f number is the widest aperture opening of 3.5 at the wide end 18mm and the widest of 5.6 at the telephoto (max zoomed-in) end i.e. 55mm. Remember the bigger the number the smaller the opening and the lesser the light and consequently the slower the shutter the maintain a given brightness of the picture. Haven't you noticed how images get blurred when you take pictures at full zoom, even in your non-DSLR smaller cameras. see the connection?

Most lenses have stuff written like say 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

18-55 means you have a focal length of 18mm at wide end (most zoomed out)

Aperture setting: Depth of Field

 

Aperture F-stop f/5.6 shutter speed 1/80 sec

Check how the background is blurred or 'out of focus' as compared to the blue subject in focus) i.e bigger This is because of the smaller f number light and consequently aperture and therefore a faster usable shutter speed







Aperture F-stop f/20 shutter speed 1/6 sec

Check how the background is also in focus as compared to the blue subject. This is because  the bigger f number i.e.smaller aperture  setting (and therefore a slower shutter speed to maintain the same brightness of the picture. At the given shutter speed the whole image will definitely blur if the camera is not kept  very steady, say on a tripod or kept on a solid support.











Learn by examples:

• 55-200mm f/4-5.6:  Implies a focal length range between 55mm to 200mm and the max aperture opening at 55mm is 4 and that at 200mm is 5.6. Note that this value stands for the maximum aperture at the given focal length, not the minimum. As the f number increases, the aperture opening reduces in size and you get a greater depth of field, i.e. objects further away from the subject also get clearer in the picture, they do not remain so blur as compared to a bigger aperture opening (and therefore a smaller f number).

• 17-55mm f/2.8: Note here that there's just one value for maximum aperture here i.e. 2.8, which is a nice big aperture opening (of course you can lower it to suit your need). This implies that the lens can maintain a big aperture opening of 2.8 throughout its focal length range from17mm to55mm. Such single maximum aperture value lenses are generally bulky and expensive. As they can maintain the high brightness even fully zoomed in (therefore you can use a higher shutter speed and get sharper pictures) unlike say a 17-55mm f/3.5-5.6 which to begin with has a smaller aperture even at 17mm (3.5) and as you zoom in to 55mm, the length of the lens barrel increases, the aperture further closes down to a maximum possible value of 5.6 and there's lesser light reaching the sensor and this has to be compensated for by either raising the ISO (which will raise the background noise of the picture)or slowing the shutter (in the latter case, the chances of your image blurring increase). For indoor action photography where you might have to capture objects moving with high speed in low light conditions, you wanna have fast lenses i.e. lenses with big aperture (i.e. smaller f number) and even lenses like this one 17-55mm f/2.8 is great as it can keep the f number low even fully zoomed in.

 Don't get too confused with the values, remember that the larger the f number, smaller the aperture opening and therefore lesser the available shutter speed to click in low light and therefore higher the probability to not get a sharp image in lesser light. 

Let's take another strange example:

• 50mm f/1.8:  
• Hey this looks strange right? No focal length range! We'll talk about that in a while. Firstly I wanna bring your attention to the maximum f number value on this lens, 1.8, yes this means that this lens has a frigging big aperture and therefore this lens allows a lot of light in and is great for taking pictures in the dark (which will turn up brighter and crisper as you can use a faster shutter speed). Apertures get even bigger than that i.e. lower f numbers of 1.4 and even 1.2 but the cost rises exponentially to obtain that much bigger aperture. For example the Canon's 50mm f/1.8 costs a meagre INR 6000 but 50mm f/1.4 costs  four times as much and the 50mm f/1.2 costs fourteen times the f/1.8.

• Now just one focal length number of 50mm implies that this is a single focal length lens. These lenses are also called prime lenses and yes, you cannot zoom in out out but you do have a ring for manual focussing on the subject. Of course they have autofocus as well and their autofocus is very fast. Since there are no complex mechanics of zoom lenses in these lenses and generally speaking, bigger apertures, these lenses are very fast i.e. you can use a much faster shutter speed using these lenses. Some say that they bring out a better photographer in you as you work that bit harder to compose pictures, moving back and forth to get that composition right using these lenses instead of sitting on a couch and rotating a zoom ring. Since they cannot zoom, they just have a focus ring to focus manually (of course they have autofocus mode as well). Due to the fact that they do away with the complex mechanics of zooming, they are simpler and give better/sharper images pe se. They do take great pictures. These fixed-focal-length or prime lenses can come in various focal lengths from as low as 35mm to even 800mm! So yeah, prime lenses come in all categories i.e. normal, wide-angle and telephoto. Now just because they don't zoom-in doesn't via rotation of a ring doesn't mean they're not meant for capturing distant objects, say the 400mm or 600mm prime lens or the 800mm prime lens are telephoto prime lens means they're really like a friggin telescope. Imagine how much closer to your subject an 800mm is gonna bring you, great to click those nervous birds without disturbing them. Of course there are lots of bird lenses out there like zoom lenses with a big maximum aperture. No no I'm not saying you cannot click great bird pics using smaller lenses, sure you can but birds as a subject can be pretty tricky, they generally stay at a safe distance from people and take off quickly if they sense they're being watched by curious eyes, so generally speaking a big focal length and since birds in flight are pretty fast moving subjects, you definitely a fast lens (hmmm! with a small f number i.e. large aperture).

Well hope that now you'll be able to better understand the specifications when you're checking out those lenses.

Another thing, crop factor. Full frame sensor cameras have sensor sizes equivalent to the 35x24mm film (click on the link on the word sensor to read about sensors). However those are very expensive DSLRs. Most DSLRs that people buy have cropped sensors. Yeah the Nikon DX cameras have a sensor size 1.5x smaller than the full-frame sensor of say the Nikon D3 FX camera. The Canon's is even smaller at 1.6x smaller than full-frame.

Here's the Canon's lens page

http://www.canon.co.in/personal/products/dslrs/lenses?languageCode=EN 

and here's Nikon's  

http://www.nikon.co.in/products.php?categoryid=1011

Nikon D40 Vs Canon Rebel xsi (450D)

This is not exactly a very technical review, it's just about a hand-on feel and ease of use for amateurs.

I couldn't find these both pitted against each other on the internet. Maybe because the Nikon D40 is considered inferior to the Canon 450D (Rebel xsi). I saw comparisons of Rebel xsi Vs D80 or Vs D60 and others but not with D40. There is a comparison on http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_450D-vs-Nikon_D40  and the verdict favors the Canon but lemme tell you something, I think they're really under-rating the D40.

Nikon D40 -

All pics clicked using the kit lens on the Nikon D40

Positives:

1. Larger sensor (CCD) than the xsi (CMOS)  -- overview of sensors
2. Better colors (Nikon's vivid mode is definitely vividER)
3. Can additionally set exposure compensation in manual mode (apart from setting your aperture and shutter-speed). I love this feature and can't seem to find it/ figure it out on the rebel xsi (yeah you can set in Av Tv etc but not on manual)
4. QUICK MENU is just an awesome thingi on this (adore it)
5. Much easier to delete images (really just press delete twice and it's gone. You might wonder why this is a plus point; use it and you'll know)
6. Metering choice is given along with an image example (that's very thoughtful of Nikon really)
7. Nikon NRW raw files: using Nikon's free ViewNX2 software you can set the exposure compensation and a host of other changes with ease.
8. 6 megapixels (now now now, really view the D40's 6MP pic alongside the Canon's 10MP and you'll see the crispness in the Nikon's). Really please don't get the DSLRs into the megapixel wars, let the P&S fight it out amongst themselves and how big a print do you want anyway. 6MP is more than sufficient on a DSLR for hobbyists.
9. Fit the SB400 and it's very difficult to take bad portraits with the combo, it's and awesome duo. 

Negatives:

1. Three focus points only
2. Metering not exactly spot on (but then neither is the xsi's)
3. Slower (rebel is fast...really fast)
4. No ISO button
5. Hmmm! still bloody lovable
6. No built-in sensor cleaning
7. No internal focusing motor (same as D3100 and D5100) so the choice of the new lenses available is restricted to the autofocusing lenses AF-S (S stands for built in SWM or the silent wave motor). These of course are more expensive than their non-SWM counterparts.

Canon Rebel xsi (450D) -

Positives:

1. Faster
2. 9 focus points
3. Dedicated ISO button
4. Kit lens has IS
5. IR sensor that shuts the display as soon as your face comes near the viewfinder (pretty cool eh!)
6. Bigger screen
7. Built-in sensor cleaning
8. Both Nikon and Canon are Japanese companies but still Canon's "Made in Japan" tag inspires confidence unlike the Nikon's "made in Thailand". Don't get me wrong, Japan is a brand name in itself.
9. I got mine with 18-55mm IS and 55-250mm IS for cheap 

Negatives:

1. I dunno it just bloody fires as soon as you press the shutter, many a times without focusing properly (don't have that kinda problem on the nikon)
2. Gives you a plethora of image modes (vivid, faithful, portrait) but I fail to appreciate the nuances between them. Nikon's image-mode differences are clear to see.
3. Just doesn't have the laid-backness of the D40
4. I didn't fall in love with it like I did with the Nikon D40 but I'm trying.
5. Canon CR2 raw files Hmmm! I don't like them so much like I totally adore the Nikon NRW
6. I don't even like Canon's free software DPP like I love the Nikon's viewNX2

Sensors
Canon's smaller APS-C sensor has a crop factor of 1.6x as opposed to Nikon's larger APS-C sensor with 1.5x. Therefore with the same focal-length lens, you should be able to go wider on a Nikon. However I'm not clear whether Canon compensates for this in some way. Hmmm! can't say if this is corelated, Canon's 18-55mm is 58mm in diameter as opposed to Nikon's 18-55 which is 52mm.
Websites
Another thing, as of today, the 5th of December 2011, Nikon's website is far far far better for viewing products and to obtain details as compared to Canon's. Yes, this is apart from the fact that Canon's website is to damn dull compared to Nikon's. However the tutorials on both these websites are great, with Nikon's being more attractive but Canon's worth reading as well.

Prime lenses
One great thing is that an f/1.8 50mm prime of Canon is half the price of the Nikon's (50mm prime is for FX anyway) but then Nikon has a wider 35mm prime (again twice the price of a Canon 50mm prime) in its arsenal; you have people swearing by the 35mm DX Nikkor. Forget f/1.4, those are expensive lenses, this page is not for rich kids.

Hmmm! I'm still waiting to fall in love with the Rebel xsi but it's a  little difficult as of now after the D40. I know it'll take a little time till i get used to the canon system. If I ever change my opinion of the rebel, I'll surely write about it, for now, I badly miss my D40's quick menu and exposure compensation in manual mode and yes my awesome little SB400 speedlight.

PS- whatever dslr you might have, if you're shooting out in the Sun, do get a polarizer / polarizing filter else you'll just hate your camera for nothing. People swear by CPLs (circular polarizers) but LPLs (linear polarizers for the not-so-rich hobbyist) work just fine for me and they're cheaper. They do cause vignetting but I don't know how bad it is in comparison to CPLs. I've noticed that it gets worse if you also have another filter, like UV in between the polarizer and the lens.

DSLR lenses for non-rich

Before you check this out, you might wanna check what the lens terminology is all about by clicking "here"

If you're a non-DSLR zoom-crazy maniac, this is not for you. Go buy that 20+ zoom and trigger it around into people's windows.

Ok I digressed, I'm sorry it's an old habit I'm trying to get rid of. Let's get back to on track, DSLR lenses for the non-rich/poor amateur. Lenses for poor maniacal amateurs like me -- 18-55 preferably the VR model (called Vibrator Reduction on Nikon, there are two other 18-55 models that are non-VR and one of them, the cheapest is the kit lens supplied with most basic cameras like the D3100) or 18-55 IS (called Image Stabilization on Canon) is the first lens you should have (if you're as poor as I am you can't afford the 18-200 VR or IS else that would be the must have lens). 18mm to 55mm is a versatile range to take care of most of your needs like basic landscape, portraits, even macros and of course if you have a dSLR, you'll probably get this as the kit lens. With some dSLR models you may get 18-105mm, 18-135mm or even 18-200mm lens as the kit lens.


Another great addition you can have is a prime lens: For Nikon the Nikkor 35mm AF-S DX f/1.8 that'll work great with any DX Nikon. There's the option of buying a 50mm f/1.8 FX lens for the same price but on a DX camera the effective focal length will become around 75mm. For Canon the deal is great, 50mm f/1.8 for less than half the price of Nikon's.


Next between 55-300mm, it's utter stupidity but if you must prove your stupidity at least tone it down and buy a 70-300 VR Nikkor or IS Canon. But then again, if you have less money, these lenses will still be kinda out of reach for you. 
At Rs 15,000/- Canon's 55-250mm (IS) is a great lens, only that it is not very sharp fully zoomed in.
At Rs 12,500/- Nikon's 55-200mm (VR) is also a good addition.
At Rs 20,000/- Nikon's 55-300mm (VR) is NOT that great an addition. If you can afford 20,000/- then save more money and buy the 70-300mm (VR) for 29,000/-. You also get a non-VR 70-300mm for a paltry sum of Rs. 6,000/- but then hand-held usage of this lens zoomed-in without VR will cause blurring issues. The price difference is not just because of VR but also of the build quality. Therefore better to invest more because lenses seriously matter.


Bottom-line: 
Lens kit for the non-rich


For Nikon DX: 

1. 18-55mm VR  
2. 35mm AF-S DX f/1.8 prime lens
3. 55-200mm VR

For Canon:
(Canon lens page: not as easy to study as the Nikon's)

1. EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
2. EF50mm f/1.8 II prime lens
3. EF-S55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

Of course those living in the US can have lots of goodies for much less on various websites that only use credit cards from within the US territory and some of which do not send stuff to India (if you happen to use you friends credit card in America). So if you're there, you probably have these kits with you already, if not, I do not why. 

Have fun.