Photography gear and jargon

[Mike_H]

After the December RotM discussion broke down into a discussion about photography, it's piqued my interest a bit. I've always been fascinated by photography. I think I have a decent camera, albeit old. I don't have any extra lenses for it, and I never really learned to use it. Truth be told, I got it for Christmas from my parents one year. I asked for a camera. I was thinking point and shoot, something to drop in my pocket when I was out for motorcycle rides. My dad, who is Mr Overkill, bought me a Canon EOS 30D. Note: This is before camera phones were a thing, probably 2005 or so.

Anyway...I've used it a handful of time. I wouldn't even say I know the basics. I've been reading up on photography recently, learning what the three legs of exposure are and what each of them actually mean. Next step is how to adjust on MY camera and why I might want to.

But, when I see lenses described...I have no idea what the numbers mean. I don't know if the lens I have will is sufficient (I assume it is) but I also don't know what else I might pick. I know a telephoto lens is for bringing subjects in close and they are VERY long.

@pc1p posted in the RotM thread about camera bodies...DX, FF (full frame?), Full Body? I have no idea what this means. What is the difference between full body and full frame?

Anyone care to give some links to primers on hardware?

The other thing...Just like you can write a beautiful poem with a cheap bic-stick, Im sure you can take beautiful pictures with a cheap camera. Is the technology that much advanced in the last 15 or so years that my EOS would be NFG? About the only thing I could see being bad is that its not as fast (processor speed) and the Mega pixel count is low (but at 8 megapixels I'm sure its PLENTY). Anything else I might be missing out on, as a new photographer?

 

[Apparition]

I didn’t see pc1p’s post but the last camera I bought, not for me, probably 10 years ago and lost in the divorce was a Canon 7D. The reason I bought it was that it had dual processors and took pictures like a machine gun, way faster than the competition at the time. My advice is spend as much as you comfortably can. And white lenses are better.

 

[Mike_H]

I didn’t see pc1p’s post but the last camera I bought, not for me, probably 10 years ago and lost in the divorce was a Canon 7D. The reason I bought it was that it had dual processors and took pictures like a machine gun, way faster than the competition at the time. My advice is spend as much as you comfortably can. And white lenses are better.

ideally, I'd like to NOT spend any money on a new body.

I don't get the "white lenses are better" joke? Is canon the only one to do white? Maybe its not a joke?

 

[Apparition]

ideally, I'd like to NOT spend any money on a new body.

I don't get the "white lenses are better" joke? Is canon the only one to do white? Maybe its not a joke?

You probably don’t need a new body until you get to the point you need a new body.

The white lenses are the professional series, they are white to minimize the effects of sun heating the lens. They are also more $$$$$.

I know nothing about photography but I research heavily when I buy stuff.

 

[freedom_in_4low]

I would say just practice with the camera you have for a while. The resolution will be fine for stuff you post on the internet, but it wont be enough to print out and hang above the fireplace. Once you learn the settings on it you should be good to go with a new camera as long as you stick with the brand. My wife learned on Canon and then got a Nikon and still hasn't mastered it.

 

[NashvilleTJ]

My big boy is a Canon EOS 5D Mark III. It's a full frame (meaning the image sensor is a full 35 mm - many SLR's use a smaller sensor). It's 22 megapixels, shoots crazy fast (something like 8-10 frames a second) and will shoot at 12,600 ISO. In simple terms, ISO is how fast the sensor can process light (and that's a very high ISO) and gives the camera the ability to shoot at very fast shutter speeds, and also shoots well in low light. Faster shutter speeds and more light give you the ability to take pictures of moving objects (think sports) and still get sharp, focused pictures.

My favorite lens is a Canon (White - I agree Ryan!) 70-200mm IS zoom 2.8. IS is "Image Stabilized" which means the lens itself mechanically moves to compensate for shaking and allows it to get even sharper images - especially when not using a tripod. It also will shoot at a 2.8 f-stop throughout its entire focal length. F-stop is a whole 'nuther discussion, but it simply means the lens is just as fast when zoomed all the way in. Most lenses are not. The big zoom takes you very close to the action.

This is it:

My every day lens is a Canon 28-135 mm IS zoom which is also image stabilized. It's also a very fast lens, but much easier to carry around.

When I bought this thing a few years ago it was Canon's #2 camera in their pro line. It takes phenomenal pictures and would be a good camera even in the hands of a pro. It is way beyond my abilities. On my computer where I sit right now I have about 50,000 pictures that I've kept over the years. I've taken literally 100s of thousands over the last 20 years.

I have 4 kids - all of whom played sports. Ice Hockey, Lacrosse, Football, Baseball, Rugby (That's my daughter - she's the toughest one). The big lens above I bought specifically for Ice Hockey. There is nothing tougher for a camera than taking a fast action shot in a dark hockey rink.

All that to say this: I've carried this thing wheelin' many, many times over the years, and have a lot of great shots of my rig as a result. But these days I generally no longer carry it. The camera on my iPhone is not even in the same league as this thing, and cannot take nearly the same quality of picture - but it can take OK pictures, and those are generally good enough. It's a pain in the ass to carry the big camera. As you might guess it's pretty expensive, so I have to secure a case for it in the back, and keep it locked up or carry it with me when I leave the Jeep.

So for the most part now I just stick the iPhone in my pocket and call it good. Funny how things change. I do still get the big one out occasionally, but generally only on special occasions.

 

[OldBuzzard]

There is nothing wrong with a Canon EOS 30D (that's Canon with one 'n'). We drive old Wranglers, why not use old cameras? I still have my old EOS 300D from 2003, it still works, and still takes good photos. My wife uses it, and I use a newer but still old Canon EOS 5D Mk II. With 6 to 8 megapixels, you can print a full resolution photo on 8.5" x 11" paper. More pixels means you can print bigger, but many of use never print at all any more. And 8 megapixels is about what a 4K screen resolution is, which is a big very high resolution for computer or Internet use. The main thing the older cameras may not do as well as newer ones is dark areas of an image. Those will be noisier on older cameras.

The only thing I would be concerned about with an old camera is the battery. They get tired and don't take much of a charge. They're no longer available from Canon, but aftermarket ones are available. The aftermarket ones can be hit or miss. I would try a brand from a decent camera store with a good reputation, perhaps a Watson BO-511A battery from B&H Photo Video.

In the film days, 35mm film was pretty much the "standard". A 35mm camera used a frame size of 36mm x 24mm on the film for the image. And the "standard" lens was about 50mm focal length, which gives an image on 35mm film which is pretty similar to what your eye sees. Shorter (wide angle) lenses like a 28mm give a wider field of view, and longer (telephoto) lenses like a 200mm give a narrower field of view. A zoom lens is a variable focal length lens, and can "zoom" from wide angle, through "standard", to telephoto.

When digital cameras came along, the sensors (which do the job of film) were expensive. Still are. The bigger the sensor, the more it costs. And a 36mm x 24mm "full frame" sensor was really expensive. So most 35mm-size cameras used smaller sensors. Your EOS 30D has a "crop" sensor, 22.5mm x 15mm. Imagine a "standard" lens dumping an image onto 35mm film. If it dumps that same image onto a smaller sensor, the image is effectively "cropped", cutting off part of each side. So a 50mm lens produces a photo on a "crop" sensor more like a telephoto 80mm lens would on film.

Yours may have come with the "kit" lens, an 18mm to 55mm zoom. You can get longer or wider lenses, but camera glass gets expensive. Yes, the white lenses are better, but there is nothing wrong with Canon's black lenses. In general, the white lenses are more rugged, and often water sealed, with somewhat better glass. Much of the extra price is for the build, not necessarily the glass. As you use the lens you have, you'll figure out what you need. If you often zoom out to the widest it will go, and you wish it would go wider, that tells you what type of lens you might want to buy next. Likewise on zooming in. Or, if you can always get the photo you want by zooming with your feet, you don't really need any more glass. You can probably find affordable used glass, in the less expensive black models. Or, if you really get into it, go for the better white lenses. You can move up to a new body and still use your expensive glass. (But mirrorless cameras are taking over the world, so that may begin to change in the next few years).

 

[NashvilleTJ]

Ouch! I looked back and I used 2 "n's" every time I typed Canon. You may now disregard everything I wrote...

(OK - Time for a little Ninja Editing!)

 

[pagrey]

If you take the same time and effort to get a tripod, setup the shot and wait for the perfect light like the guy with the DSLR your cell phone will get the same shot. There is little difference between new cell phones and a DSLR from a year or two ago. Pixel count doesn't really matter at all unless you are printing posters. Ansel Adams said the best camera in the world is the one you have with you and I couldn't agree more. I've taken my most memorable shots with cell phones because that's what I have with me, especially hiking and backpacking. I think the time is better spent learning to shoot with what you have with you all the time. Nothing wrong with using the heavy gear but I think if you go through the same motions you'll get the same results. To me a great photographer has nothing to do with the gear. I've been to museum exhibits where the photographer used 110 film. It's setting up the shot and capturing the moment. Learning to recognize when you've got the good shot afterward and taking the time to get it just right in post and then printing/framing it. I guess posting on ROTM counts too.

 

[Zorba]

Nothing wrong with your EOS. My pair of Sony's are 10 MP each - and I keep them set on 5 MP 99% of the time. The main thing any DSLR gives you over point and shoots (or smartphones) is flexibility. 99% of the time, a good P&S or even a smartphone can take a picture that is "just as good", albeit with less options and poorer camera form factor. I have an old 2MP Kodak P&S that I inherited from my parents. It only has a small zoom range, the lens is slow, the sensor is slower, but it takes fantastic pix under the right conditions (read: Good lighting).

 

[OldBuzzard]

I (mostly) agree with pagrey. The photographer takes the photo, not the camera, just like the cook makes your meal, not the skillet. If you're going to take anything beyond snapshots, a tripod is usually your best tool. It holds your camera steady, lets you take your time and frame your shot, and think. Cell phone cameras have become amazing, but a real camera will let you control everything, not the engineer who wrote the firmware in the cell phone. After all, he's not standing there looking at the scene that you are.

 

[Zorba]

I (mostly) agree with pagrey. The photographer takes the photo, not the camera, just like the cook makes your meal, not the skillet. If you're going to take anything beyond snapshots, a tripod is usually your best tool. It holds your camera steady, lets you take your time and frame your shot, and think. Cell phone cameras have become amazing, but a real camera will let you control everything, not the engineer who wrote the firmware in the cell phone. After all, he's not standing there looking at the scene that you are.

Even I have to admit that smartphones *can* take great pictures - especially if they're turned sideways as they should be for 98.375% of the pix they shoot. Considering how much the damn things cost - they should.

But your EOS will probably serve you well as long as you want it to, unlike a smartphone which will cost more, and only last a couple or three years. As oldbuzzard says, watch out for batteries. I don't know what the situation is with Canon batts, I can still get new Sony batts if I look carefully. 95% of the 3rd party batts are complete crap - at least in the Sony ecosphere.

eBay is your friend for both lenses and bodies.

 

[Mike_H]

Thanks everyone, especially @oldbuzzard and @NashvilleTJ. Sounds like I just need to start shooting. My battery still works pretty well, and I know the lens I have isn't the best. That will probably be my first place to spend money.

 

[InOmaha]

I use Olympus cameras. They are in a 4/3 format with a 17x13 mm sensor and no mirror. That makes the lenses smaller. Like the old rangefinder or Leica type cameras with fixed viewfinders. I can use those lenses with adapters. I actually like the format closer to square.

I can upsize it with a grip and take photos with my 35-100 F2. I downsize it and can carry 3 small lenses and the camera in a small bag. I use my old Olympus film camera lenses on it. The 50mm f1.8 becomes a 100mm f1.8. The focus depth is deeper so if I want more blurr I need a different subject placement.

It's not "full frame" but neither is 35mm. For good good you'll want medium format at 50x40.2mm

My Olympus viewfinder is live digital, so what you see is what the sensor takes. IF you want to do the same and play with settings, go on the advanced or pro settings on your phone camera and change them. Its painfully slow compared to using the wheels and buttons on a camera.

I'm ~200,000 photos into my digital cameras over the last 12 years. I've never gotten a better photo on a cell phone. They work good for posting photos online and sharing. But they are like a truncated audio file off the internet versus a lossless audio or record ( or soundbar versus full theater audio). Close but not the same. Open a jpeg vs a raw photo in an editor and the amount of data in the raw file is way, way more. That's why mine are 8-12mb a piece versus 1-2 for the jpegs.

 

[InOmaha]

The Olympus gives me a nice balance between quality, portability, and price.

Here's a screen shot of the pro settings on my phone for reference.

 

[NashvilleTJ]

There is in fact a big difference between taking a shot on a cell phone camera - even the best - and on a well set-up SLR. But the difference is not so much the camera - but rather the lens. Photography is all about collecting light, and the larger and higher quality of the lens, the better it is at collecting light. The amount of light that is collected by the lens directly impacts how long you have to expose the media - whether it is film or a sensor. With less light, you have to expose the media for a longer time. At a given aperture, it is the ISO of the media and the shutter speed which controls this exposure. The shutter speed is how long the shutter remains open when you take the image. The less light, the longer the shutter has to remain open to collect enough light to properly expose the media.

Now here's the thing: The longer the shutter is open, the blurrier a moving object becomes. Take a picture of your dog running across the room. If your shutter speed is fast enough, you will get a clear picture of Fido because Fido moves less while the exposure is taking place. If the shutter has to stay open longer to gather enough light, Fido's image becomes blurry because he has moved more while the shutter remains open.

A great example is what I noted above about picking up that long lens for Ice Hockey. If you take an iPhone into your kid's indoor hockey rink and try to take an action shot, that relatively small lens takes a while to gather enough light to expose the sensor, and the shutter has to remain open much longer - resulting in a blurry shot. The objective lens on my big Canon (one "n" this time) is many, many, many times the size of the iPhone objective lens, and therefore collects much more light which allows a much faster shutter speed, and sharp images.

Can you take a good picture with a camera phone? Of course. Many people do. Composition is important. Framing is important. None of those things change using a big camera. But there are limitations when using a camera phone that can sometimes only be overcome using a good lens in front of an SLR.

 

[OldBuzzard]

Zorba's right. The quickest way to improve your cell phone photos is to TURN THE BLOOMING THING SIDEWAYS. Oh, sorry, I got a little worked up there. Pet peeve.

 

[Unacceptable mouks]

There is in fact a big difference between taking a shot on a cell phone camera - even the best - and on a well set-up SLR. But the difference is not so much the camera - but rather the lens. Photography is all about collecting light, and the larger and higher quality of the lens, the better it is at collecting light. The amount of light that is collected by the lens directly impacts how long you have to expose the media - whether it is film or a sensor. With less light, you have to expose the media for a longer time. At a given aperture, it is the ISO of the media and the shutter speed which controls this exposure. The shutter speed is how long the shutter remains open when you take the image. The less light, the longer the shutter has to remain open to collect enough light to properly expose the media.

Now here's the thing: The longer the shutter is open, the blurrier a moving object becomes. Take a picture of your dog running across the room. If your shutter speed is fast enough, you will get a clear picture of Fido because Fido moves less while the exposure is taking place. If the shutter has to stay open longer to gather enough light, Fido's image becomes blurry because he has moved more while the shutter remains open.

A great example is what I noted above about picking up that long lens for Ice Hockey. If you take an iPhone into your kid's indoor hockey rink and try to take an action shot, that relatively small lens takes a while to gather enough light to expose the sensor, and the shutter has to remain open much longer - resulting in a blurry shot. The objective lens on my big Canon (one "n" this time) is many, many, many times the size of the iPhone objective lens, and therefore collects much more light which allows a much faster shutter speed, and sharp images.

Can you take a good picture with a camera phone? Of course. Many people do. Composition is important. Framing is important. None of those things change using a big camera. But there are limitations when using a camera phone that can sometimes only be overcome using a good lens in front of an SLR.

I agree but I would add that composition and framing are also affected by focal length and sensor size. Smartphones have come a long way but they can't bend the laws of physics. They can provide great results but not in every situation and don't offer as much freedom as a camera with good lenses.

OP, I think you can take great pics with your old Canon. There are some really instructive youtube channels about photography. You could practice with your camera and when you find its limitations you'll have a better idea of the gear you need to upgrade. What lens do you have? If you don't mind manual focusing, you can find cheap old lenses and experiment with an adapter.

Here is an example taken with a 2010 Sony Nex5 and a 50 years old 200mm f/2.8 Minolta lens

 

[pagrey]

I know the lens I have isn't the best. That will probably be my first place to spend money.

A good place to find information about all the different options is Ken Rockwell.

 

[NashvilleTJ]

A good place to find information about all the different options is Ken Rockwell.

That's a fantastic site. Thanks for the link!