The right SLR for the job & Megapixels vs Lens

[Lynnzora]

Hello everyone,

I'm a professional photographer in training I'm starting a small photography business. I'm trying to find the best SLR for me. When most people post questions about what SLR to get, there are generic answers like "it depends on what you're planning to use it for." My main focus will be people for portraits, head-shots, modeling shots, etc...w/ great backgrounds. I want the closest I can get to that professional magazine cover look. You don't have to mention that it depends on the photographer... I'm a believer of that too! I'm getting the training, now I want the camera that's able to deliver the results...I'm very confused on which camera to get. here are some questions that I have that I feel will help me make a better purchasing decision as well as be helpful to the next person with the same questions.

1. I've been looking for cameras with the highest megapixels. Is that what I should be doing? Some people say that megapixels really don't matter and that it's all about the lens.

2. If I could get any camera right now.... I would want to get the Cannon EOS 5d Mark II. However that falls considerably out of my $2,000 range that I'm starting with. Especially when that includes the amount that I have to spend on the lens, etc... too. The quality of the 21.1 mp camera and video portion too... is EXCELLENT but I can't afford that quite yet. So choosing between Nikon and Cannon which I heard are the best. So now I'm looking at the CANNON 50D (15.1 mp) and the NIKON D90 (12.3 mp) what do you think I should get for what I'm trying to do? When I do prints, they'll be 8X10...12X18Even though the cannon has more megapixels, some people say that the D90 is still delivers the best quality and to just invest in the different lenses... What do you think?

3. Also what would be the best software for retouching photos?

4. What would you say the best lens to use for what I'm doing? What about special events like weddings and parties... I'll be doing those too.

Thanks for the help in advance :thumbsup:

[Lynnzora]

Also what do you think about the 14 mp Pentax... Who has used it? What do you think about its quality for what I'm trying to do? Is it easy to find affordable lenses to go with it? Maybe I'm just a tad uninformed but it's brand that I haven't heard of... That's why I'm questioning it's quality compared to others. I want the best for what I have to spend.

[Sushigaijin]

Those are all great cameras. Many professionals use them all. You'll probably hear the most regarding the canon and nikon because of their (large) market share, but the pentax is perfectly capable as well. You won't be making a bad choice, regardless of which you choose. Make sure to get at least one good lens in the focal length you want for portraits - something in the 70-150mm range would be ideal.

[Anbesol]

Getting good images, with great resolution, that 'magazine cover' type of look, depends more on the photographer and his ability to paint with a metering formula and sculpt with light, it has very little to nothing to do with which brand of camera he shoots with. Honestly - Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Pentax, any of them will do you good and give you that great image. Some have features that cater to different parts of the market better than others, ex: Live-view, full frame, built in IS, autofocus performance, weatherproofing, battery type, sensor type, build type etc etc etc. Hard to just sign a blank check to one supreme manufacturer, its an intensely competitive multi-billion dollar industry and every manufacturer is churning out some *great* cameras and *great* lens.

"Depends on what you want to use them for" is not a generic response, its a real one. Maybe auto-focus performance is a priority for your use, maybe full frame, maybe macro, maybe you could really use live-view, maybe sensor based stabilizers. Portraiture is a pretty general performance variable, so just saying 'portraits' doesn't really narrow it down to any specific system. Tell us a budget, and tell us what kind of equipment you want at what kind of price. For portraiture, I would get something fast in the zoom range of 30-100 (18-70 APS equiv), a nice bounce flash (that stock flash is a wild disappointment), and a 50mm fast prime is always a good portrait lens for the more subject isolating DOF.

I use both the Sony A700 and the Nikon D200 doing portraits. Nobody I have ever given a printed image to, ever, would be able to tell which camera I shot with based on the end result.

*edit - and I would agree that the lens makes a bigger difference than the sensor, particularly megapixels (CMOS vs CCD matters more than a few megapixels). But both are important parts of the equation.

[Ron Kruger]

Hey Lynn,
I don't know as much about digital cameras as Anbesol, though I do agree with everything he said. I would add, however, that for maximum quality, primes are generally better than variables. I'm a firm beliver that the importance of glass is drastically underrated.
I've been selling pictures to magazines for over 30 years, but only went digital last year, switching from Nikon to Pentax. There's a lot of reasons I chose this camera (mostly financial), and if you are interested, I've outlined them in another post.
I also agree than any of the brands Anbesol mentioned will give you excellent prints, if you match them with good glass. In fact, for the size prints you mentioned, I believe anything of 10 mp or above will do fine.
Since buying my K20D last June, and a DA* 200mm f/2.8 in August, I've sold three covers. It takes a while to learn what a camera can do (from a professional perspective), and I'm still learning mine. It has so many technicalogical features, that learning some of them has made me a better photographer. If you decide on a K20D, be sure to match it with either their DA* or Limited lenses. I think where Pentax really shines is in their glass.

[Dougjgreen]

If you're training to be a working pro, I think you need to pay A LOT more attention to the SYSTEM you are buying into, and a lot LESS attention to Megapixels. For all intents and purposes, you won't see a significant difference between 10 MP, and 15 MP. If you were doing 24x30 inch blowups that were going to be examined from less than a foot away, you MIGHT see a difference between 10MP and 15 MP, but only if the 15 MP camera had one of the very best lenses on it.

Just within the Canon system, many folks believe that the image quality of the 10 MP Eos 40D is superior to that of the more costly and newer 15 MP Eos 50D, because the larger pixels on the sensor give the camera better sensitivity and dynamic range. By jumping 50% in one sensor generation to the next which is only about 1.5 years newer, Canon might have actually increased the resolution FASTER than the sensor technology itself improved - so the older 10 MP sensors might well be better (as Canon's 10 MP sensors were the best available for that class of resolution).

In the Nikon system, the IQ of all the 12 MP cameras is better than the 10 MP cameras because the sensor generation is at least 2 years newer for just a 20% jump in resolution allowed their underlying sensor technology to improve by even more than the native resolution did.

That's a complicated way of telling you that you're getting WAY too carried away about Megapixels, which is something that's nowhere NEAR the most important criteria in determining which cameras take the best pictures. Personally, I would say that any of the current Canon cameras, from the 40D on up, will meet your needs, as would any of the current Nikon Cameras from the D90 on up.

Other brands have some models, such as the Pentax K20D, Olympus E30, or Sony A700, which also are fine cameras that would meet your needs. But my caveat with any of these would be that the SYSTEMS may not meet all of your future needs as a working Professional, and the commitment of these companies to the professional market may not match that of Nikon or Canon.

What you need to understand, as a professional, is that your main camera will change every couple of years, but your investment in lenses and lighting is MUCH more significant and needs to be much more durable. And frankly, only Nikon and Canon have been long term system players, and have filled in all of the gaps for the optics and accessories that pros need.

[Anbesol]

The 50D's noise performance is significantly better than the 40D. If 800-3200 shooting is something lynn ever really wants to do, this easily outweighs the small performance difference of the 10-15MPix. The gap-less pixel technology (forget the exact wording) has done some incredible things with noise performance. The 50D also has a much brighter, and better resolution LCD (~912kpixels vs ~215kpixels).

Other brands have some models, such as the Pentax K20D, Olympus E30, or Sony A700, which also are fine cameras that would meet your needs. But my caveat with any of these would be that the SYSTEMS may not meet all of your future needs as a working Professional, and the commitment of these companies to the professional market may not match that of Nikon or Canon.

Well, they've all remained committed to their base for the past few decades, don't suspect any will leave them abandoned. When Minolta had to retire they handed over their system manufacturing process to the very best company to take care of it, the number 1 provider of digital sensors in the world: Sony (subsequently awarding their base with Zeiss glass autofocus capability). I don't think worrying about the future of any system is realistic for any professional, each system is too marketable and profitable for any technology manufacturers to just ditch in a field.

[Sushigaijin]

I pretty much agree with anbesol regarding commitment to systems - all of the companies in the running have been around a LONG time and (probably) aren't going anywhere. And, they are all pretty much complete systems with a wide range of accessories, lighting, and are pretty much equal in terms of flexibility.

Availability might be a different matter though - it's hard to find a good selection of the smaller makers at brick-and-mortar stores, because the market is so dominated by canikon.

Professionals shoot with canikon because 90% of the DSLR market is canikon, not because they make "better" equipment. It's all good. Some is just marketed better than others, and some is better in certain situations than others.

I wouldn't want to take a canikon into some of the places I've been with my olympus lenses; the lack of weather sealing is a serious liability. Other people might not want to take an olympus to shoot in complete darkness, because the high ISO performance isn't as good as other systems...it's all a trade off. portraits and studio lighting? they are all the same.

[Dougjgreen]

Professionals shoot with canikon because 90% of the DSLR market is canikon, not because they make "better" equipment. It's all good. Some is just marketed better than others, and some is better in certain situations than others.

I wouldn't want to take a canikon into some of the places I've been with my olympus lenses; the lack of weather sealing is a serious liability.

I didn't say that Canon and Nikon made BETTER gear than the others. I said that they made more comprehensively complete systems for professionals. I switched from Olympus to Nikon specifically because of some gaps in the Olympus product offering.

But I'll be the first to agree that Nikon does not make an under $1000 wide angle that comes near matching my 11-22 Digital Zuiko lens, which I've kept, along with an E-1 body, for exactly the kind of bad weather shooting you refer to. But Olympus lacks the type of fast focusing long fast glass that Nikon and Canon have made their bones with among professional sports and wildlife photographers. And Nikon's flash system is FAR more well developed and comprehensive than Olympus' is.

And certainly, a Nikon D3 and some top tier Nikkor pro lenses are as well made as Olympus gear, and Nikon and Canon also provides professional caliber weather sealed gear for working professionals.

[Lynnzora]

Ok thanks, this has been extremely enlightening! I've talked to many people in the last couple of days and realize that it's all in the lens... (mostly)... What type of lens would you suggest for a nikon D90 and/or Cannon 50d..? Again this would be for portraits, modeling portfolios, head-shots for actors, and on some occasions events like weddings and parties... Thanks again everyone... Anbesol, DougjGreen, Ron, Sushigaijin, etc...

So what lenses should I invest in for what I'm trying to do?

[Lynnzora]

Which company has the most affordable lenses....? Affordable yet good quality. Spending $1000 on a lens... mannnn I'm just not there yet. It's not a posiblity right now but will be eventually....

[Dougjgreen]

So what lenses should I invest in for what I'm trying to do?

IMHO, there is really two distinct applications here. One is portraiture/head shots under controlled situations, and the other is weddings/parties.

For portraiture, what you want is a moderate telephoto that's fast enough to blur the background. Given that it's a controlled situation, I would recommend a fast prime. In the Nikon System, the best choice for this is an 85mm. Depending on budget, you could get an 85mm f1.8 for around $400, or a super fast 85mm f1.4 for around $1000. I personally would save the $600. You might also grab a 50mm f1.8 just because it's razor sharp and cheap (well under $150) if you preferred a shorter tele to the 85mm.

For weddings and parties, what you want is a reasonably fast zoom that can span from moderately wide to moderate telephoto. In the Nikon System, again depending upon your budget, there is a 24-85mm f2.8~f4 lens that would cost around $600. Nikon also makes a superb 24-70mm f2.8 that would set you back around $1600, but this lens is, I believe overkill for your needs, because it's optimized for full frame applications, and you're paying $1000 extra for just one stop extra at the longest end, and this extra optimization at the part of the field of view that any APS-sensor camera (such as the D90 and D300) won't actually use. I'd get the 24-84 and save $1000.

These lenses are all substantially better than the kit lenses you've been looking at. I don't have the expertise about the Canon system, but I am sure that they have reasonably equivalent offerings in the area of 50mm and 85mm primes, and a high quality zoom in the 24-85mm range as well. What you want is prime lenses at f2 or faster, and zoom lenses with a maximum aperture of f2.8 at least at the wide end, and no smaller than f4 at the longest end.

Lots of folks will be pushing you to get telephoto zooms that top out at 200mm or longer, but for the applications you are concentrating on, you simply don't need that type of length.

At a bare minimum, I'd get the fast 50mm f1.8 prime, and the 24-85mm f2.8~f4 zoom. That's around $700 worth of first rate optics in the Nikon system. You might be able to get by without the fast 85mm prime, using the 50mm for when the fast aperture is needed, and the zoom where more length is needed. But if I were to JUST pick the optimal lens for portraiture, the right answer is a fast 85mm prime.

I'm nowhere near as up on the specific offerings within the Canon system, but I'd be surprised if they were not similar, and similarly priced.

[Anbesol]

I just realized, another one that might be worth looking at is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, It's built on Pentax/Canon/Sony and Nikon, and its $400 (waaaaay cheaper than the brand specific ones). Its fast and it performs beautifully, plus it has full frame coverage, so you are already pulling your images through the sweet spot - I'd bet you won't be able to tell the difference in the images from this and a Nikon/Canon brand equivalent, plus it gives you a fast f-spot across the entire zoom for that soft bokeh.

[Dougjgreen]

I just realized, another one that might be worth looking at is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, It's built on Pentax/Canon/Sony and Nikon, and its $400 (waaaaay cheaper than the brand specific ones). Its fast and it performs beautifully, plus it has full frame coverage, so you are already pulling your images through the sweet spot - I'd bet you won't be able to tell the difference in the images from this and a Nikon/Canon brand equivalent, plus it gives you a fast f-spot across the entire zoom for that soft bokeh.

Sigma also makes a high quality 24-85mm f2.8 lens that costs under $500. But I still think that the Nikon and Canon stuff (other than their cheap kit lenses) is built to a higher level of durability than the 3rd party lenses. The Tamron and Sigma lenses might be just as sharp and less costly, but I don't think they are as well suited to the rigors of day in, day out professional use.

[rongarrett]

It never is mentioned when talking of portraiture, but I would recommend a MAXIMUM of 12mp for most portraiture. Ya see good portraits BLEND contours and tonality, unless of course you are shooting that old salt with 6000 wrinkles in his face.

Women especially like their pics to flatter rather than show every wrinkle or blotch. For studio work a good strobe with a big softbox will be right there second with lens choice. I second the Nikon line for an unmentioned reason. If you really stick to Portraiture and wedding venues, the Fuji S5 pro, {which uses Nikon lenses} might just be your affordable camera. Its a heck of a camera for those special uses.

I use Portrait Professional with my portraiture. It's very affordable and really does an admirable job even in the automatic mode. When I shoot a job with lots of different customers, {high school dances, etc} it saves the day because I can turn out lots of images with good results in a reasonable amount of time.

Just my humble opinion.

[Sushigaijin]

Doug, I don't think the olympus system is the most over-developed system out there and there are definitely lenses that I'd like that they don't make...but I'm intrigued by the statement that "Olympus lacks the type of fast focusing long fast glass..." Is the 300 (600=) F/2.8 not long enough or fast enough? And there are two top quality long zooms that are fast, the 50-200 (100-400) and the 90-250 (180-500). I'm mainly wondering what focal length you think they are lacking.

I'd like a 400 (800=) f/4 myself for birding. So I understand that different people have different needs...I'm just wondering what yours were, that were important enough to jump ship?

[Dougjgreen]

Doug, I don't think the olympus system is the most over-developed system out there and there are definitely lenses that I'd like that they don't make...but I'm intrigued by the statement that "Olympus lacks the type of fast focusing long fast glass..." Is the 300 (600=) F/2.8 not long enough or fast enough? And there are two top quality long zooms that are fast, the 50-200 (100-400) and the 90-250 (180-500). I'm mainly wondering what focal length you think they are lacking.

I'd like a 400 (800=) f/4 myself for birding. So I understand that different people have different needs...I'm just wondering what yours were, that were important enough to jump ship?

Well for starters, the 300mm f2.8 lacks an internal high performance focus motor, as does the 90-250. So they are both $6000 lenses that are functionally obsolete. But what I'd really like is a more rationally priced lens in the 300-400mm range, such as a 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6 for under $2K, with an SWD focus drive, to compete with what Nikon and Canon have. My other issue is that I don't like the ergonomics of the E-3, nor the absurd price point of the E-30. And finally, Olympus is poorly supported by third party vendors, as Sigma is the only one who supports them, and they have nothing close to a comprehensive offering in 4/3.

Sigma's newer 120-400mm and 135-500 lenses that exist in Nikon and Canon mount are substantial improvements from the long Sigma lenses that are out in Olympus mount - both in optical performance at the long end, and in the speed of their focus motors.

It also helped that I already had quite a bit of Nikon gear from my film days, (an 80-200mm zoom, a 28-80mm zoom, and 24mm and 50mm primes, plus a slew of older manual focus primes, as well as several Nikon film bodies) so my cost to switch back to Nikon was minimal. If I needed to buy a new body with fast tracking AF and an SWD long lens for my Olympus, it actually cost me quite a bit less to buy a new body and long lens within the Nikon mount. My switching cost really is just a wide angle lens, and for now, I'm still using my Olympus with my 11-22 at the wide end, and Nikon for anything longer.

This all came about because I have been let down by Olympus AF performance in the field when shooting wildlife on multiple occasions - to the point that I was missing far more shots than I would have with gear that had competitive tracking AF performance.

The irony is, I went into the Olympus digital system in the first place because their cameras made better use of my older MF Nikkor glass than did Nikon, prior to the D200. My birding lens in Olympus land is a 300mm f2.8 Nikkor ED-IF manual focus lens.

[Anbesol]

Sigma also makes a high quality 24-85mm f2.8 lens that costs under $500. But I still think that the Nikon and Canon stuff (other than their cheap kit lenses) is built to a higher level of durability than the 3rd party lenses. The Tamron and Sigma lenses might be just as sharp and less costly, but I don't think they are as well suited to the rigors of day in, day out professional use.

If rigors include all-weather outdoor use, I suppose. As Lynn mentioned Portrait/wedding, I can't imagine what problems you foresee with the Tamron. I wouldn't discourage the Tamron based on its extending zoom, lack of weatherproofing, or the sorts. Those features will cost lynn mucho bucks that he could apply better towards other lens, strobes,speedlites, etc. No need to have a lens that can withstand the rain for portraits/wedding. Just my 2 cents...

Gotta agree with you on Olympus though, they have their nook and they do well, but they don't have quite the lens variety and selection that all the other big guys do. The 4/3rds format is a pretty niche market.

[Dougjgreen]

My only issue with the Tamron 28-75 is that, on a small sensor body, 28mm isn't wide enough for wedding work, as it's a 35mm equivalent of 42mm. A 24mm (36mm equiv. FOV) is noticeably wider. 18mm would be even better, if there were a fast enough lens that also was at least 70mm on the long end.

[Anbesol]

Thats a good point, particularly if he goes with Canon (it would be 45 on the Canon). The Sigma 24-70 f2.8 would probably be a better choice than.