More important: Lenses vs. Mp???

[Lynnzora]

Hello,

My name is Lynn. I'm new to this site and so far I believe it's wonderful! I've been wading through the threads trying to avoid reposting something that may have been discussed early... Couldn't find anything that answered my questions so here it goes...

I'm a professional photographer IN TRAINNING . In addition I'm a dancer and actress... I have a lot of acquaintances who look for head-shots, and modeling portfolios. Knowing this and my love for photography has motivated me to pursue it professionally.

I'm looking to learn to do magazine quality type photos. I'm currently training and meanwhile I'd like a camera that is capable.

EQUIPMENT:

Deciding between the Nikon D90 (12.3mp) and the Canon 50d (15.1mp) has been crazy for me because #1. You would think the one with the most mp would be the better camera. I was told that this isn't so with the 50d and that the resolution is poor... pictures come out more soft than sharp... What are your thoughts?

It has been emphasized that I'm investing in not only the camera body but the system because I'm going to invest into lenses. If I buy the D90 right now and invest in its lenses... Whenever I decide I'm good enough and I'm able to invest in lets say a Nikon Dx... then I can use the same lenses. That's what I've been told but is that true even though D90 isn't a full-frame camera and the Dx is? Or let’s say going from the Cannon 50d to the Mk III

I've also been told that the camera really doesn't matter and that it's all in the lens. That I could get an old 8mp camera for like $300 and then invest in a $1000 lenses...

So to wrap it up... (Sorry for the looong post)

1. What would you guys personally get if you had to choose between the Nikon D90 and the Cannon 50d? Remember I'm looking to do portraits, headshots, and modeling portfolios....

2. For what I'm doing what lens should I invest in?
50mm, 85mm??? Then lenses that seem to be INCLUDED in the kits that I'm looking at are the
10-55, 70-300, 50mm prime.
If I had to invest in one additional lens what should it be? I would especially love to hear from a professional who does portraits, and people... What do you think about the kit lenses I listed? Are they enough?

Thanks in advance. You guys are great!

 

[Flash Harry]

I'm with the nikon system D300, previously using fuji S pro cameras, which also use nikon lens, fuji pro s3, s5 cameras are excellent tools for what you have in mind and the majority of nikon lens work with the camera, over here these cameras are cheap compared to a similar nikon body, my older film cameras (nikon) lens have been used on all my digi cams with no problems, so I'd say go nikon for all your lens requirements and consider the fuji bodies as a cheaper alternative to niks for what you intend to shoot, you wont be disappointed.

Due to the crop factor of FF prime lens I'd go for a 50mm + 85mm primes for portrait work, the 50 being the cheapest option. H

 

[gsgary]

Canon or Nikon it dosn't matter, but if Canon i would go with a 5D instead of a 50D

 

[TheUndisputed]

The answers you are seeking are really personal preference. If you are wanting to do Magazine quality stuff, I would look into something more along the lines of a professional grade camera such as the Nikon D300, Nikon D700, and Canon 5D.

I plan to eventually do photography as a side profession, which is why I bought the camera I did. I bought the D60 because after I did some research, found it had the same sensor that the D80 and the D200 have in it(both are discontinued dSLR's now, replaced by the D90 and D300), and cost much less. The D200 is a professional grade camera, so I thought why not invest in a decent priced camera that has sensor technology of basic professional value. Although, I didn't need a full blown professional grade camera, because I'm not a full grade professional photographer.

To answer your question about lenses. Yes, in most cases, if you have a decent camera, the lens is going to dictate how well your shot comes out. Now, with lower end dSLR's you run into more ISO noise at lower settings than you do with the higher end models, but other than that, there is not a huge difference. The amazing thing about photography even with a low end camera, is that all of the images can be fixed to professional grade photographs in post processing using photoshop.

Megapixels are important in some cases, and not in others. It depends on your photographic application. Do you need something that is going to shoot at a high resolution, or no? If you are the average photographer, you really don't need a high megapixel camera, especially if you do ePortfolios and DVD sets for your clients instead of prints. My 10.2MP will make a print size of 16" wide by 12" tall at 240dpi. Which is much larger than an 8.5"x11" magazine page. So you can imagine what physical size a 12MP or higher is capable of printing at. If you are doing stuff like what I do, for graphic design use that will be printed on large objects such as 24x36 posters, than a 10+ Megapixel camera is what you need. However, as long as the camera you are using has a good sensor in it, it doesn't matter if it is 5MP or 12MP, the image quality will only be restricted by what the lens and photographer are capable of producing.

I'm still going to recommend a higher end camera such as the D300 Nikon or 5D canon for your purpose though.

Hope that helps.

 

[Lynnzora]

Ok cool... So you're not one who believe that the type of camera doesn't matter and that it's all in the lens you purchase? That's what I've been hearing so far. So you believe that the nikon d300 will take better pics than the d90? Why do you think? I was trying to compare the two... I know they're both 12.3 mp... Could the d90 be hyped up because of the video feature?

Also for some reason I was told that the d90 is a professional grade. It's not?

 

[TheUndisputed]

Don't get me wrong, the D90 is a very nice camera. Much nicer than what I have. The sensor is better. Let me explain.

If I shoot at 400 or so ISO on my camera, you get a light noise from it sometimes, depending the settings. The D90 has less of that ISO noise at the same setting because it has a better constructed sensor. So, you have better versatility with your settings and ranges to get better quality shots. Now, noise isn't something that bothers me, because small noise can be completely ridden in photoshop. So, I don't mind noise.

However, It's nice to be able to just shoot, and not be having to worry about correcting your photo's later. With a higher end camera, such as the D300, you get better quality images right out of the camera than an entry level dSLR. The D90 is a good pick, and with nice lenses, can take just as good images as a D300. So either one is your choice. You just stated you are a professional in training, and a pro needs a pro camera. a D90 is the bare minimum for a pro photographer. I really wouldn't recommend it. Out of the three I listed, I have seen the best quality from the Canon 5D.

And no, I don't completely agree with the lens is everything idea, and I don't completely disagree. You can't buy a D40 or D60, buy a bunch of lenses for it, and expect the images to come out the same as a D700 Nikon or D5 Canon would. The technology in the camera parts just isn't even in comparison, and they are so diverse, that a lens is not going to make up the difference.

The reason I said I don't fully disagree, is the fact I can buy lenses for my D60 that will produce images in similar quality to those from a D90 or D300 with a lower end lens. So the lens dictates what quality image you have in range of the equipment you are using. If I bought a high end coated and treated lens for My D60, and you bought the same grade lens for a D5 or D300, the D5 and D300 are still going to take better pictures and achieve better quality than the D60 with the same quality lens. However, put a high grade lens on the D60 and a lower grade lens on the D5 or D300, and the images will start to look similar. You get where I am coming from?

 

[Lynnzora]

Yes that's helpful. last question: Lets say I did start off with the d90 and I bought lenses for it and then I upgraded to a d300 or Dx... are at lenses going to fit still. I heard from one person that they will because they're all Nikons and another person said they won't because the d90 isn't a full frame camera and the Dx, etc... is...

 

[TheUndisputed]

Yes that's helpful. last question: Lets say I did start off with the d90 and I bought lenses for it and then I upgraded to a d300 or Dx... are at lenses going to fit still. I heard from one person that they will because they're all Nikons and another person said they won't because the d90 isn't a full frame camera and the Dx, etc... is...

D40, D40x, D50, D60, D70, D80, D90, D200, D300, & D700 ( I think I named them all) all have an F mount lens system, which means all of those camera's will mount the same lenses.

Now, there are some technicalities as far as metering and auto focusing on some of the lens combos on the lower end Nikon dSLR's such as the D40, D40x, and D60, but I don't know exactly what those technicalities are. Something like some of the lenses will mount up on those camera's and will meter but wont Auto Focus, etc. I wish I knew to tell you, but I don't. However, I don't think you are going to have a problem as far as D90 to D300 or D700 lens compatibility, and they will mount up, even if you have to manually focus some of the AF lenses from each camera.

 

[Bigpopa]

Hey Undisputed I got you on this part the D40 , D40x and D60 need the lenses that are AF-S because those camera's dont have a focus motor in them. The higher end DSLR's have the motor built into the body and can use the regular AF lenses . Inturn you have a wider range of lenses to use with a high end body . Hope that helped a little .

 

[Katier]

I'd go for neither. The Pentax K20D is the indesputed bargain right now and is honestly the best value ( and thus best ) camera to get for someone just starting out. It has lots of benefits and really no disadvantages.

1) in body shake reduction - ALL lenses you use on it benefit.
2) Excellent quality, weatherproofing and features.
3) Proven K-Series lens mount. This means you can use ANY Pentax K mount lens buildin in the last 36 years and with a simple M42-K-Mount adapter the M42 lenses before that.
4) VERY VERY competitively priced - the Equivelent Canon and Nikon's are both more expensive yet no better a camera.

As stated earlier Nikons have also used essentially the same mount for a long time ( longer than the Pentax K ) BUT they're more expensive and you don't benefit from shake reduction them as the SR is built into lenses on Nikons not the body. Also with pentax don't have the same level of AF differences that the Nikon does. ALL ( with 2 exceptions) Pentax AF lenses will work fine on the K20D. The two exceptions where two lenses built for their first AF camera, the Me-F, that had the motor in the lens. That was a short lived experiment and the second version of Pentax AF is the same as used on the DSLR's.

Negatives? NONE.. simple as that.

 

[JohnBorkowski]

MP's are important but mostly the type of lense that you have matters.

 

[Katier]

Oh and for magazine work anything over 6mp will be fine. Magazines are usually done at 240-300 dpi. 6mp will be ok in a magazine but limiting for the editor. 10mp and above will be fine for the editor to work with.

Lens wise, for outdoor work the kit lens would be fine. BUT once you go indoors it's best if you get faster lenses as you might have lighting problems. Usually the press do use flashes, so that's something else you need, but at distance a faster lens would still be beneficial.

Something like :-
Kit lens
70-300 zoom
50mm prime f1.7 or quicker.
35mm prime
maybe a 105mm prime
couple of quality flashes
Tripod
maybe a couple of light stands and umbrellas ( for most press work you wouldn't use them but if your doing a more controlled shoot they'll be invaluable.)

 

[manaheim]

Ohmigod... my first advice is to take any advice you get on the internet with a grain of salt... including mine.

I'll just state for the record that I have a D300 and a D100. I am a part-time professional photographer working in commercial real estate. I've been doing this about 6 years.

What camera you buy generally has almost entirely to do with budget.

Any SLR camera from the D40 up to the D3x is capable of taking excellent pictures. (I don't know the Canon line, so I speak in Nikon) The more money you spend on your camera, the fewer limitations your camera will have. For example... the D60 only has 3 focus points and no autofocus motor. The D90 has quite a few more focus points (12, I think?) and does have an autofocus motor.

What does this mean to you, today, as a beginner? Not a heck of alot, which is fine. Just know that the "lower" that you go on the model chain, the sooner you are likely to bump into limitations of the camera as you progress in your craft. That's not necessarily bad or good... it's just a fact. Where it becomes bad is how much money you will have to spend to upgrade later on.

Does this mean you should rush out and buy a D700 or a D3X? Well... maybe not. If it just so happens that you're the kind of person that can lob around $5K without even blinking, then sure... what the hell? Buy the ubercam. If not, you should not feel as though you need a better camera to be able to take good pictures. Will a lesser body limit you or make things more difficult occasionally? Absolutely. Will it make you totally unable to take a good picture? No.

On the sensors and parts stuff... yes, there is no question that higher end or newer bodies will frequently have better parts that will affect your image. For example, my D100 winds up with lots more noise in longer exposures than my D300 does (even in RAW). In fact, my D300 is essentially noise-free. However, again, as someone new to the craft... you're likely not going to notice this too much.

On the megapixels... don't fret about it at all. Should you try to get one with more MP than another? Well, sure. It's absolutely handy to have those pixels available as you can crop more aggressively in post-processing without worry, and it does allow you to blow the images up larger without "seeing the big dots". However, there are people on here who will tell stories of printing billboards from a 3x5 film picture, and if you pay attention to really large prints you will see that more of them have big dots that you simply didn't notice before staring at them from 3" away. It's nothing to kill yourself over.

Keep in mind, too, that as megapixels get higher on some of these smaller sensors, quality can actually go DOWN. This is the nature of cramming more and more sensors onto such a tiny space. Not much to worry about yet in the DSLR space... but I start to wonder as we hit 24MP on some.

Lenses are similar to cameras in some respects. Better lenses will have fewer limitations, and in the lens space it's almost a direct correlation to money spent, and the cost of lenses goes up exponentially with even the simplest improvements in speed and quality. However, can you get a good picture with a cruddy lens? Again... of course you can. Some of my very best pictures were taken with my absolute lowest quality lens. Should you go out and buy $1000+ lenses on day one? Well, probably not... but again, if you have the money, there's not any real reason not to. (other than my personal philosophy that you learn more from bad optics)

The one interesting point on lenses is that they tend to hold their value. An investment in glass tends to be one for a lifetime. You're not likely to huck your glass even in 20 or 40 years when you buy good stuff, but you'll probably go through cameras like wild.

On the flip side, keep in mind that cheap lenses are CHEAP. It's no big deal to spend $100 on a lens and futz around with it for a few years and decide you need something different. It's maddening to spend $1500 on a wide angle lens, to later realize that what you really needed was a deeper zoom telephoto.

Like anything... the camera is a tool. If you're really good, you will get more than anyone else can out of even the worst tool imaginable. If you're not that experienced, even the best tool in the world will yield poor results. This is key.

There are people on here with lesser bodies that take WAY better pictures than I do. There are people on here with better bodies whose pictures are laughably bad.

Decide what your budget is first. Then decide what line of cameras and lenses you personally prefer, then buy a camera within your budget with a lens or two to get you started.

 

[manaheim]

Oh yeah, one more thing... Photoshop is not going to save a bad picture and make it look professional, no matter what you do. Photoshop can tune up a slightly off picture and bring it back from teetering on the edge, but that's about it. It's very powerful, but anyone who knows can generally tell when you tried to salvage a train wreck.

 

[Lynnzora]

Ok again very helpful! Now I need to decide on the best lens for my head shots, and portfolio. I'm going to also look into the Pentax brand... Right now I'm thinking:

50 mm prime
70-300
what else do you think for a must have portrait lens??