The best camera in the world is the one you have on you. I chose my current cell phone specifically for its camera; so I’d always have a good point-and-shoot on me. Anyone who says you need the greatest gear to take fantastic photos simply hasn’t looked around. Some of the best photos I’ve taken were on a (now) decade old 3MP point-and-shoot.
Ken Rockwell has some well written articles on this idea (even with photographic examples)
It’s not about your camera (
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/not-about-your-camera.htm )
Your camera doesn’t matter (
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm )
A $150 versus a $5000 camera (
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm )
Assembling a System (
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/assembling-a-system.htm )
All photos in this post are from my tumblr feed (
http://mattkrull.tumblr.com/ ). In the post for each photo I say which camera (or phone) I used, and with which lens. I don’t pretend to be skilled or experienced photographer, but I do have fun, and that’s good enough for me.
So, with the ‘you need the newest bestest coolest gear’ BS out of the way. Let’s talk about choosing to have better gear for your own personal *enjoyment*.
I don’t need a DSLR. But I enjoy the sensation of using one. I enjoy focusing manually, having all sorts of manual controls, and that wonderful tactile click of the shutter release. Simply put I find the act of using a DSLR fun, where I don’t find the same thing with a point-and-shoot camera.
When I chose my DSLR (back in 2008), I chose an Olympus E-510 because it was affordable, took fantastic shots, was much smaller than the Nikon and Canon equivalents, and most importantly, felt really good in my hand.
It had two big draw backs compared to the more mainstream options: It didn’t perform as well in low light, and it didn’t do high-speed action/sports photography very well (due to a slow auto-focus, and previously mentioned poor low light). Since my plans for the camera were landscape and travel photography this was fine.
The week after I bought the camera I started photographing my wife’s evening football games; High speed low light action – oh well, such is life.
Prime lensesWhen I was growing up, my dad *always* used zoom lenses on his SLR. I didn’t even know fixed length (prime) lenses existed. I certainly didn’t know they cost less, weighed less, took (generally) sharper images, and worked better in low light (lower aperture numbers). These days, when you buy a DSLR, it usually comes with a standard kit lens giving you a wide-to-standard zoom range (18mm – 55mm is pretty normal) with an okay low light performance (F3.5 – low enough to shoot in the evening, but indoors you still want a flash). Don’t get me wrong, this is a good lens. It serves most people perfectly well. If you bought it separately it would cost somewhere around $150.
A 50mm prime (non-zoom-able) with F1.8 (much better low light, enough to shoot parties without a flash) costs about $125 new.
My particular camera doesn’t have those same inexpensive lenses. The closest my camera has is a ‘pancake’ prime (less than an inch long, making the whole DSLR barely bigger than a point-and-shoot) costing $250 - which is what led me to part 2.
Old lensesSince I didn’t have affordable new lenses to look at (even when buying used), I had to look back to old lenses. In my case, Olympus’s DSLRs use what is called the Four Thirds (4/3) mount. This is a digital specific lens format. Their old (and very good) film lenses used the OM mount. This is where things work out really well. The OM mount is dead. Canon still uses the EF system introduced in ’86. Nikons have mish-mash of compatibility, but when properly researched, you could mount a 50s lens on a modern body. That means a Canon lens from the late 80s is still useable by everyone with a Canon camera, and used prices reflect this. Since OM is dead, used prices are very low. The other half of the puzzle is that the 4/3 mount is smaller than the OM, which means a simple brass ring adapter is all that is needed to connect the old lens to the new body. A quick search on ebay got me a 50mm F1.8 prime lens for $50 and adapter for $20. (I’ve since purchased a full set of quality lenses for every occasion (including my wife’s evening football games) for $100)
Shot on a 50mm manual focus lens from the mid 80sFull manualAnd this is where things get awesome. The old lens I purchased is full manual, no auto focus, no auto aperture, nothing. Now, if you worked with film SLRs in the past, you’ll remember that getting the right exposure (mixture of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO) wasn’t easy. But a modern camera has Aperture Priority mode, which means that it takes care of setting the right ISO and shutter speed for you. So the only real difference between using the full manual lens and using a modern lens is that you have to set it to a roughly close enough aperture and focus manually. To me, this is part of the fun of photography. It is the time taken to compose and focus your shots that distinguishes *photography* as an art form from simply taking snap-shots of your friends.
Shot on a 28mm manual focus lens from the late 70sLearning my own lessonYesterday, I had to drop my wife off at the airport for 4:45am. I figured that since I was going to be up and about anyways, I’d try to capture some sunrise photos. So after leaving the airport I headed downtown with everything I would need: My camera, my 50mm prime lens, my 40-150mm zoom lens, a tripod, a camera bag, and my dog.
What did I learn? That half that stuff was a total waste. I never used the camera bag, the telephoto lens, or the tripod. If I’d left them at home (or even just in the car) I’d have had an ever better time.
Shot on a 50mm manual focus lens from the mid 80s. Shots aren't as sharp as they could be because I had my image stabalization incorrectly set.My pointIf you want to do more than just take snap-shots, getting a camera that allows full manual control is fun and awesome. Getting a camera that will let you use old glass from the time when full manual was the only way to do things is both inexpensive and bad ass.
Shot on a 50mm manual focus lens from the mid 80sSystemsOlympus film cameras used the OM mount. There are adapters for that will take OM lenses and mount them on either the Four Thirds or Micro-Four Thirds format cameras (E-xxx, Pen-x).
Pentax
has never changed their mount, so any Pentax lens will work on a modern Pentax camera. changed their mount in the mid 70s. Any Pentax lens from the late 70s or after will work on any of their DSLRs. They made adapters to use the older lenses on the new mount, so as long as you also get the adapter, you can use any of their lenses.
Sony DSLRs use the old Minolta mount, so you can buy 70s and 80s lenses that fit the current Sony cameras.
Canon DSLRs use the EF mount introduced in ‘86. They cannot use FD mount lenses from before that.
Nikon is kinda messy
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htmAnd of course, you can search ebay to see if anyone makes an adapter for the lens and body combination you want.