Tech | Choosing a digital camera (DSLR)

Recently lots of people seem to be asking me, "what digital camera should I buy?" So here's a summary of my advice on digital SLRs. This assumes that you've already decided to buy a DSLR, and not a compact digital camera, for any of the following reasons:

• You'd like to be able to switch lenses and possibly upgrade your lenses later
• You want faster focus and operation for moving subjects such as children or sports
• DSLRs produce higher quality images for larger prints, especially in low light

There are several companies making DSLRs today (Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Sony) and all told they offer about 30-40 models of DSLR. Where to begin?

In this post I'll focus on just the two leading manufacturers, Canon and Nikon. Other companies make some perfectly good DSLRs, but it makes sense to stick with the leaders because they offer the widest range of cameras and compatible lenses, release new cameras frequently, and compete closely with each other on features and price. (You can always take the advice offered here and apply it to other manufacturers' offerings.)

Canon and Nikon both offer a range of DSLRs from entry level to professional. Let's look at four basic categories of camera from each manufacturer:

• Entry level: This is the most affordable DSLR in the range. An entry level DSLR is a significant step up from any compact digital camera. If you want a capable camera, but photography is not your main hobby or your job, then an entry level DSLR will give you the most bang for your buck. You can get started with a camera and a lens for about $500.
  
• Enthusiast: Each manufacturer makes a number of progressively more advanced models for people who enjoy photography as a hobby and are interested in specific features. This category contains the most camera models. Prices range from $500 to $1,700 for the camera body (without lens).
  
• Full frame: A "full frame" camera has a sensor the same size as a 35mm film frame. This means that the photographer can take full advantage of the same lenses used on professional cameras, especially wide angle lenses. If you need this capability, you know who you are. Prices are around $2,500 to $3,200.
  
• Professional: These cameras are designed for full time photojournalists and studio photographers. They are more durable, weatherproof, and capable. Prices are around $5,000 to $7,500.

So let's look at the current lineup of Canon and Nikon cameras in these categories in more detail, as of September 2009:

Entry level cameras

The entry level DSLRs from Canon and Nikon are:

• Canon 1000D: 10 megapixels, has live view; about $500.
  
• Nikon D3000: 10 megapixels, no live view; about $500.

Both of these cameras are great value for money and a big step up from comparably priced compact cameras.

My advice: if you have no specific interest in photography as a serious hobby or profession, you have no reason to look beyond this category. 10 megapixels are sufficient for prints at least up to 12"x18". And unless you can invest real effort in learning and practice, a better camera won't make you a better photographer.

Enthusiast cameras

The enthusiast DSLRs from Canon are:

• Canon 500D: 15 megapixels; adds 14-bit files, 920k pixel display, and depth of field preview; about $700.
  
• Canon 50D: adds a pentaprism and 6.3 fps shooting; about $1,000.
• Canon 7D: 18 megapixels, 8fps, and better pentaprism; about $1,700.
  

The enthusiast DSLRs from Nikon are:

• Nikon D5000: 13 megapixels; adds live view; about $600.
• Nikon D90: adds a pentaprism, 920k pixel display, and depth of field preview; about $900.
• Nikon D300: adds 14-bit files and 6 fps; about $1,700.

Some of the features these cameras have to offer are: more resolution (15 or 18 megapixels); greater bit depth for more shadow detail (14-bit files instead of 12-bit files from an entry level camera); a more detailed display screen (with 920,000 pixels instead of the 230,000 in an entry level camera); a bigger brighter viewfinder (pentaprism instead of pentamirror); a button for depth of field preview; and faster shooting for moving subjects such as sports (6.3 or 8 frames per second instead of about 3 in an entry level camera). Of course there are other feature differences between these cameras that may be more important to you.

My advice: the capabilities are actually pretty similar despite the significant price differences, so don't get sucked into spending two or three times as much on a camera, just for one or two features. Also, be aware that to get the full benefit of resolution over 15 megapixels, you'll need professional quality lenses in the $1,000 range.

Full frame cameras

The full frame, non-professional DSLRs from Canon and Nikon are:

• Canon 5D Mark II: 21 megapixels, 4 fps, up to ISO 25,600; about $3,200.
• Nikon D700: 12 megapixels, 5 fps, up to ISO 25,600; about $2,500.

Because of their larger sensors, these cameras perform better in low light. They exhibit less noise at high ISO and can shoot up to ISO 25,600 (although ISO 3,200 is the practical upper limit for most purposes).

My advice: this category is worth the extra cost if (but only if) you know your specific style of photography will benefit from the greater access to lenses that it brings -- specifically, if you need the highest quality wide angle lenses -- or if you make extensive use of selective focus. And if you plan to make money from your photography, this category is a bargain compared to professional cameras with similar capabilities.

Professional cameras

If you need a professional camera, you know who you are and you don't need this guide. But just for comparison, here are three professional cameras from Canon and Nikon:

• Nikon D3: 12 megapixels, 9 fps; about $5,000.
  
• Canon 1DS Mark III: 21 megapixels, 5 fps; about $6,100.
• Nikon D3X: 24 megapixels, 5 fps; about $7,500.

Sources

• DPReview has the most detailed reviews and a camera database for Canon and Nikon
  
• Canon web site
• Nikon web site

More guidance from other sites:

• How to Pick a Digital SLR Camera
• A Rookie Guide to Digital SLR Cameras

Photos | India in motion

 

Sometimes it's helpful to set some images aside and come back to them a while later. In January 2008 I was in India and took a lot of photos that I thought of as "just travel photos" at the time.

In reviewing them now I'm struck by how different they are from my other photography. But I can also see that they should be different. For a "Western" visitor, India is a very "different" place in so many ways. Historically, culturally, religiously -- those are obvious. But less expected is the pace.

As a visitor to India you tend to start out in cities. And those cities are far more dense and vibrant than any Western city I can think of. As Joe said, after being in Mumbai, you go to Manhattan and wonder, "where is everyone?" Just stepping out onto the sidewalk in the morning, the sense of activity is nearly overwhelming at first. Learning to cross the street is an adventure.

So it makes sense that I would end up with a lot of images about motion. Quite a few of them were even taken in motion, from car windows. Obviously we visited quiet and contemplative places in India too. But these pictures of India in motion are what really stands out to me from the trip.

View flickr slideshow

Photos | Counter-typologies

 

In 2008 I had the great good fortune to see Bernd and Hilla Becher's exhibit "Landscape/Typology" at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC. I was fascinated by the formal beauty, rigor, and dedication that these images showed. As so often happens, this exhibit made me look at things in a new way and I started to see patterns around me that I hadn't paid much attention to, especially in the shape of residential houses.

In some neighborhoods, especially during the housing boom of the 1950s and 60s, nearly all the homes were built at the same time and from just a few floor plans. If you walk around such a neighborhood, you can clearly see the original cookie-cutter designs, but they are gradually overlaid with modifications made by successive owners.

I call these "counter-typologies" because whereas a typology shows commonalities among things that were created independently, these photos show the divergent evolution of things that were exactly the same to start with. Each home bears the imprint of generations of people who have tried in their own (usually terribly mundane) way to make their home comfortable and different. 

Duplexes (freestanding houses containing two homes side by side) show this evolution most clearly because they set the differing tastes of two neighbors immediately next to each other, with just an imaginary dividing line between.

View flickr slideshow

Photos | Photographic sketches

In August I saw Philip Trager's exhibit at the National Building Museum and was especially struck by a handful of his prints that show interior spaces rendered like a pencil sketch. By taking a photo with a range of low contrast tones and pushing it to be "high key", Trager achieves an effect that, from a distance, looks hand drawn.

I was inspired to go back to some images from last year to see if I could get a similar effect. These photos are from inside the Se Cathedral in Goa, India, which is a large whitewashed space filled with diffuse, mellow light. Sketched against the walls are a few shapes -- ladders, ropes, and decorative mouldings.

Granted, these aren't going to "fool" anyone for more than a second (though the effect is a little stronger when they're printed on matte paper). But it's still interesting to think about what makes us recognize an image as a photograph. Today's photographic "look" evolved through the 20th century to become contrasty, smooth, glossy, three-dimensional, and (for color photography) vibrant. When we take away most of these characteristics, we're left with something that, although clearly photorealistic, doesn't "feel" quite like a photo.

View the flickr slideshow

Exhibit | Camilo José Vergara: Storefront Churches

Photo: Camilo José Vergara.

The theme of this lovely exhibit at the National Building Museum is urban buildings that have been adapted into churches, which the photographer has documented in many cities for over thirty years.

As the photographer points out, these churches are often some of the longest-lasting buildings in their neighborhoods; their congregations remain as surrounding buildings are repurposed or demolished. One particularly striking series in the exhibit shows a small storefront church that stays in place as surrounding buildings rise and fall for over twenty years. The church itself goes through changes as well as it's repainted and remodeled.

Beyond the church buildings themselves, Vergara dives into the rich signage and symbols outside and inside, as well as providing some portraits of church leaders. The churches are signed with long names and often fascinating texts that reflect their position as self-declared bulwarks of peace in often troubled neighborhoods. Some of the more fundamentalist signage has an ominous tone that is reflected in Vergara's dark, saturated, slightly spooky prints. Some of the signage also expresses an obsessive, relentless religious tone that is not completely unlike the photographer's unforgiving pursuit of these sites over several decades.

This is a rich, multi-faceted documentary project and definitely an inspiration for other documentarians.

Vergara has a book on this series as well.

Exhibit details

Exhibit | Richard Ross: Architecture of Authority

Photo: Richard Ross, “Communication with Others Room,” Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security, San Francisco, California.

In August I had the chance to see this terrific exhibit at the National Building Museum. In this series, Richard Ross shows us architectural spaces that express the authority exercised over us by governments and institutions. The spaces depicted range from prisons to schools to government meeting halls.

The first thing I appreciated about this exhibit was the large size of the prints. It's always nice to see photographs displayed at the scale of paintings, two by two feet and up. Some of the prints are square, which is especially effective for a set of related prints hung next to each other.

The content of the prints is spare, both because of the photographer's style and the nature of the spaces depicted, which tend to express their authority through bare, hard surfaces with no comfort for the eye or body. Ross' compositions take in only what is essential to the photo. They are precisely framed and squared off, with no diagonals out of place, as if to reinforce the authority of the spaces with the photographer's authority over the camera.

The spaces of empty of people. Although they are harsh and should evoke fear (and would evoke it in normal use), stripped of occupants and with the photographer's intentionally impersonal point of view, the spaces become strangely peaceful and meditative. There's a strong contrast between the way we're allowed to view these spaces through Ross' lens and the way they actually function.

This exhibit is definitely memorable for me and I hope to see more of Ross' work.

Richard Ross also has a book about this series.