I have a D40 and I will seen have an 18-something VR lens. What should I buy to clean the lens with? Should I use some sort of cheap filter over the top to protect the lens?
There are lots of 18-something VR lenses. I would recommend getting at least a 18-105, or a 18-135 if you can stretch to it. The 18-200 lens is expensive, but it's no longer a jack-of-all-trades lens and actually performs really well. If you bought that one, you'd more-or-less not need any other additional lenses for the foreseeable future.
DEFINITELY get a filter to protect the front element. A UV filter is ideal. You will probably need a 67mm diameter, as that seems to be a running theme these days with new Nikon lenses, but check the thread when you've picked out your lens and get it then.
And I've gotta disagree with Sam here... UV filters are a waste of time and money unless you plan to be shooting where there'll be lots of mud and rocks flying at you. Putting another layer of glass in front of your carefully calibrated lens elements, no matter how expensive the filter is, is never a good idea. It can also cause weird reflections when shooting scenes with off-axis lighting. A filter won't protect the front element any better than a hood would, if you drop the lens/camera.
ND/GND and polarizers have their place, but they too can be replicated in post, so it's your call there.
Re: superzooms... they also have their place, but bear in mind they won't be fantastic in low/artificial light, and they have variable apertures, which can be annoying. I'd strongly recommend something like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (constant aperture). I think I heard they may be coming out with a VR/IS version? Not sure, but at f/2.8 you might not need VR/IS anyway.
That's £250-300 worth of lens, so I disagree. This is not a solution for Jack.
Also, we'll have to agree to disagree on the filter. Frankly the lens coating on modern lenses is more than capable of resolving the additional - if any - flare created by a UV filter, especially with the flower petal hood in place, and the benefits of not writing off your £250-300 lens's front element in a pub scrum, or while it rolls around on the back seat of a Proton, are incalculable. Sorry, Ben, but I think you're utterly wrong.
Not sure why you'd have it rolling around in the back seat without a lens cap on, but I guess that's just a difference in how we handle our equipment.
I'm not saying there aren't times when they're useful (i.e., mud, rocks), but having one on at all times is in the best case a slight degradation of IQ (probably not visible) and in the worst case going to cause ghosting, reflections, etc. I've never used them, except for specialty filters, and I've never damaged the front element of a lens. Just take care of your equipment and use your head and you'll be fine. That, or get renter's insurance and get it replaced for free if it gets trashed.
When I'm not taking photos, my camera is always in its bag, but this isn't about my camera. Jack's camera will likely spend time in his coat pocket, on the car seat, passed from pillar to post at parties and ultimately be left, accidentally forgotten, on a beach somewhere off the east coast before being swept off to another beach in France or The Netherlands. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm anticipating Jack's camera will see some heavily varied action, and some cheap and simple precautions wouldn't go amiss.
With regard to filters, I've had a UV filter on the front of my lenses for as long as I can remember, and I can't remember the last time I even noticed excessive flare, except when the filter has been filthied by sea spray and various other stuff that, out of respect for both hardware and my wallet, I'd never subject my lenses' front elements to. Perhaps it's true what they say about Nikon's nano crystal coatings.
I just tend to see UV filters as a scam run by camera shops and manufacturers. They don't do anything (except in extreme circumstances) that can't be done just as easily with a little care and forethought.
I don't put filters over the front of my lenses. If it's a cheap kit-lens then in terms of pixel-peeping image quality it's probably not going to make much difference, but it seems a bit pointless in the same way that putting chrome spinners on a Corsa is pointless.
If it's a high quality lens you've bought separately that is worth some bucks and offers a real step up in image quality, putting a £50 piece of glass in front of a £500+ lens is equally pointless, in the same way that it's pointless buying a Ferrari, then restricting the fuel inlet so you don't crash.
Accidents happen, I dropped my plastic Sony A100 and very plastic kit lens onto a concrete car park floor from head height, but it survived. It didn't land on the front element, but if any lens of mine today landed front first, the hood would take the brunt of the impact. Deep, quality-sized hoods are great. They keep the front element out of harm's way, whether it be protecting it from a crowd of people, drizzle or bad weather, or a rapidly approaching ground.
Hoods > protective filters
A rocket blower (as already pictured), or microfibre cloth, or lenspen, or all of the above.
Here's a short selection from a friend's recording studio opening party which I was booked to document (got paid in alcohol and some lubbin'). The studio is called "Hundred Rabbits" so lots of bunny girls at the scene.
Basically I can see me (somehow) scratching the lens. Yes I can have a lens cap, but i'm sure that somehow I will scratch it.
A lens hood sounds good, but again that wont stop me somehow scratching the end of my £50+ lens. Whereas if I scratch a £5 filter it's no the end of the world - even if lowers IQ a bit its still better than what I have now.
If I were to get a UV filter, what sort of fitting should I get? (I would geuss any Nikkor 18-something VR lens would have the same fitting). Any other suggestion of accesories at all? I have a neck strap from my current camera I hope I can salvage and I also may need a lens cap (but sort of hoping my new lens comes with one...)
Lens wise I'd love a 55-100+ lens, but i'm looking to spend as little as possible so it'll be whatever I can get cheap...
I don't generally use creative filters, but I bought a couple of ND8 filters the other day. By adding both of them, I've been able to have a bit of fun taking long exposures even in the middle of the day:
If you can't look after the large front element of a DSLR lens, then my advice is to not use one. Go back to your compact/point&shoot camera. If you're going to put a £5 filter on anything then I can only assume you're not bothered about capturing the best images in the best quality you can. Unless it's stolen, shooting through a £5 filter will be like photographing through a lump of perspex. Just don't bother.
I could answer the "what sort of fitting" question, but the rest of the paragraph leaves me bewildered. It very much strikes me as a situation where you're desperate to buy bits and pieces and accessories to make you feel like a photographer, without actually knowing how to use them or what you need. Here's a tip: when you realise you're missing some essential accessory, go and get it. You'll learn much more. In the meantime, I wish you good luck using your DSLR without a strap or lens cap.
I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but it's something I see quite often at my camera club. One guy, who really isn't in a position to splash out on such things, wants to buy a trio of SB900 flashguns simply because he saw a great shot in a magazine that used three top-end flashguns. He has no clue about how to set up or use a lighting arrangement, and even less clue about how to achieve a similar effect on a more realistic budget. But he wants the gear, even though it'll be lost on him.
Another member of the club recently showed some pictures of robins in the snow. Beautiful shots, superbly focussed and fantastically sharp, with lovely bokeh in the backgrounds, easily worthy of a christmas card or seasonal publications. She admits to having zero experience at handling a camera. How did she get such good shots? Well, she happens to be loaded and uses quite simply some of the best kit money can buy. In these situations, is it her achieving these shots, or her equipment?
Ooh, nice shots. The traffic trails would benefit from being shot on a less gloomy day, but of course we can't control this shitty weather. It's been so dark every morning this week that it's been a battle to get up for work. The other ones look great through. What kind of processing has been done to them?
They remind me of some images I saw on a forum somewhere, where someone had got hold of a crazy filter - ND32 or something - and was taking 5 minute exposures in bright daylight. They looked superb, with cloud trails and wierd water and so on. Got an ND8 filter myself but never had the chance to use it "properly". Been so busy with work/career stuff that I've barely touched the camera since October, other than Xmas/New Year family snapshots.
See, I don't accept "if you're not serious about photography you've no right to use a DSLR"-esque approach at all. You might just as well tell every press photographer that ever won a Nobel prize to go back to pin-hole cameras if he's going to use and abuse his hardware. Because believe me when I say this, they treat their kit like SHIT. Seriously, take a step back and read what you wrote. It just smacks of SLR snobbery. I'm absolutely sure it can't be meant like that, but man.. that came across so badly.
Eh!? If Jack wants to chuck money at a camera, some memory cards, and some protective filters then what is wrong with telling him about filter screw threads and sizes? Does he HAVE to memorize a cameras for dummies manual before we allow him to pitch a few simple questions (or venture into SLR photography at all)? He wants to protect his lens. A UV filter will help. The nanocrystal coating and a petal hood will do the rest. He's beginning his photography journey and I think supporting advice rather than disparaging comments are called for.
There was a time when I was that guy, though. I spent many thousands on camera kit of various qualities over the years, and it was 20 or more years before my "photography epiphany" - that it's up to ME to get the photo, not the camera, the bag, the jacket with the lens pockets, the slave flash units and the rest. But that journey was my rite of passage, and the lessons I FINALLY learned from, decades later, all still count and I use them all, every day I go taking photos. I'm afraid I just can't accept that Jack's learning curve should be dictated to him. He's looking for a starter DSLR, tips on precautions and advice on hardware. I'm honestly at a loss to understand your fervour.
Well.. I thought the same.. but then I realised, on a less gloomy day, there wouldn't be any headlight trails to capture
I would have liked an ND32 but my camera has a prohibitive problem with noise on exposures over a minute or two. I think 45 seconds is about my limit, really, before the image is speckled with red noise dots. I picked up the two ND8s so I could mix and match.. I wanted to be able to take longer exposures while holding a shallow DOF. I'm going to look for an ND16 because I think when the weather turns up, I won't be able to get the longer exposures even stopped down to f/22 or greater (I think f/32 is my limit at 105mm). At 18mm, though, multiple filters are beginning to visibly encroach on the corners.
Re: post-processing, very little. I've increased contrast/saturation a little, and cooled down the 3rd image a little (not much). PP was difficult on the sluice gate because reflections from indirect sunlight interfered terribly with the water effect. I basically juggled brightness and exposure until the reflected sunlight's effect was diminished a little.
[edit] Jack's new lens WILL come with a cap, and if it doesn't he'll still need to see the screw thread size before he can buy one. When the salvaged strap cuts his neck, with the weight of his DSLR, he'll go buy a wider one.
Yeah, I thought you'd say that, but after a stressful day and a few glasses of wine I felt like saying just what I thought.
Y'see, I never said he has no right to use a DSLR, but simply suggesting that if he's not arsed about image quality or handling his kit in a way that won't gouge the front element of his lens, then is he really looking at the right kind of system? Hell, my previous camera & kit lens got dropped, covered in salty spray, and so on. When I got it, it was my first DLSR but I'd bothered to learn enough about it so that when I was sure I wanted an SLR, I knew about the system and I knew that things such as screw-in filter thread sizes were (amazingly enough) available on the lens manufacturer's websites.
Of course pros abuse their kit. I probably would too, if I was a pro. But as a hobby, it's purely a luxury, not a profession or an income. I treasure my gear and go to great lengths to protect it because it cost me significant sums of money. So this idea that scratching a lens is somehow "unavoidable" suggests to me that the owner isn't really bothered about looking after their luxury hobby equipment. Which makes me ask, "what do they want it for?"
I think of it more as "tough love" than disparaging comments. DSLRs are a bloody money pit, as I will readily attest to myself when I look in my camera cupboard at all the bits I've bought. Too many people think that simply buying an SLR and some bits and pieces will make their photos better, but it's the photographer that matters. What's wrong with making him sure that he actually needs and wants an entire DSLR system rather than, say, an advanced compact or bridge camera instead?
Jack's learning curve should only be dictated by him and his ability to understand what the camera system offers, rather than being spoon-fed solutions on this or any other forum.
When he says, "I was up at 4am to photograph a dawn sunrise at the coast and my lens got covered in salt spray, what's the best way to clean it?!" then that is rather different to what he is saying now, which is effectively, "I've not even pressed the shutter yet on my DSLR which I'm still to receive but what should I use to stop me putting a big scratch in the front of my lens?"
One is an example of wanting to take a picture regardless, the other is an example of getting kit without knowing how or when to use it.
Well, yeah, I figured that, but thought a similar shot a bit later on a brighter day would achieve the desired effect - just at that stage when drivers have their headlights on but the sun is setting. Obviously not an option in the current climate, but I hope you take more in better conditions in spring/summer weather.
Yeah i think every camera risks more noise/speckles with longer exposures. Mine offers the option of taking a second "exposure" with the shutter closed, to identify the hotspots and then subtract them from the real image, but this means doubling the time taken for the exposure i.e. a 2 min exposure is followed by a 2 min capture from the sensor with the shutter closed, total image time is 4 mins which is quite restrictive so sometimes I switch it off. The corner vignetting is always a pain, hence why I bought a wide-angle holder which only accepts one P-sized filter, which means I can't double up on filters, but I guess you can always crop slightly.
Exactly. He'll learn whatever he needs from experience by giving it a good go and finding out, like everyone else.
Where were the water shots taken, out of interest? Quite curious as I should at least make the effort to take such shots with my ND8. High Force is the obvious subject, but having the time to get there on a good day is a different matter.
I'm all in favour of as many people as possible moving to DSLR if they feel inspired to do so. I understand what you're saying, but if I may refer back to something DWB said about "care" and "precaution": I believe that care is something everyone tries to take, 99% of the time. Precaution is what saves your hardware the 1% of the time you're not careful enough. I don't think Jack's NOT going to take care of his hardware, I think he's just precautionary in his nature (I've known him a long time now) and I also know that, while he drives carefully MOST of the time, he still wears his seatbelt ALL of the time. Precaution: Can't beat it with a stick.
Covered, I think. I also have to babysit my hardware because I can't afford to replace it. And it's old, and I'm relying entirely on Nikon build-quality at this point, and faith that their hardware will work forever. Otherwise, I wouldn't be dragging 2Kg of brick camera around, and would opt for a lighter lump hammer.
I agree with everything you say, but he's already invested in the DSLR. Referring back to the photos by the woman with "zero experience at handling a camera", I've realised that some people just have a knack; an eye for it. I'm sure the hardware the woman has is no hindrance to her, but we both know that it takes more than just kit to make a photo. You can ride on luck occasionally, but it's rare and you can't create a decent photography portfolio out of it. Jack's photos, in the past, show he's got a feel for a photograph. His purported ignorance and glibness aside, I know that with a DSLR he'll experiment, have some successes, make mistakes, ask questions and he'll benefit from our bitter experiences too.
The more I think about it, the more I think you're reading Jack wrong. I think he'll surprise you.
I'll definitely be experimenting with this. I'm also planning to head to a busy shopping centre and see what I can get from people-motion. I've actually never seen daytime long-exposures of traffic trails before - of course I'm sure they exist, but I feel like I'm ground-breaking because I've never seen them.. and I'm running with it
The stone/rocky waterfall is actually only a couple of hundred yards from my house. I never realised it existed until a couple of weeks ago, when I heard the sound of the water about 30ft off to the side of the road. I went to explore, and found it. It's running off an old and derelict 18th century mill dam. The snow melt gave it a bit of volume - water and audio - else I'd never have known it was there. The sluice gate is at a place called Ponden Clough, a mile or 2 from my house. It's at the head of a very remote valley, near the location of Top Withens - basis for "Wuthering Heights" - and for the life of me, I can't figure out why it's there. Behind it is a natural waterfall, which looks great from a distance but is pretty inaccessible at this time of the year, without better mountaineering gear than I possess.
UV-filters, well, use 'em if you're scared or there's small rocks flying around like in a rally and don't mind a ruined photo every now and then when the filter shits itself due to some stray light.
The pros treat their kit like crap because they are pros and have stuff to do, pictures to make and have little or no money tied to their kits. Simple.
And if you ding the front element, it takes a huge crack to have any real life effect on the image. And if it does, send it for a front element replacement.
Sorry Spanky, I've not got any pictures, but I have just found a photography-related story that I found amusing. It's also a bit political, I'm afraid.
The Party of our Grand and Glorious Leader, NuLabour, has in their infinite wisdom started a propaganda flickr group entitled "Change We See", for people to upload photos of all the wonderful things NuLab have done. The Party has helpfully started it by uploading photos of health centres, renovated tower blocks, community centres, stadiums, and many other things no doubt built under PFI.
Less helpfully, the proles started uploading their photos - of police officers, cctv cameras, their stop and search forms, billboards and propaganda, and all other paraphernalia that characterises our increasingly Orwellian police state.
NuLab's zealots have worked to remove the offending images, but they appear to be fighting a losing battle. Not only is their official group now peppered with images NuLab don't want you to see, but there is another group set up called "Change we are not allowed to see" where the anti-Big Brother images have free reign.
I may get some images of the phalanxes of static ANPR cameras polluting my local roads and contribute those. At least I'll have an opportunity to get my camera out.
