Improve Photography » Gear

How to Wirelessly Connect Your DSLR to Your iPad

Jim Harmer — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:27:05 +0000

Many times, I go out on a shoot and feel like I captured the scene how I wanted it to look but then I get home and look at the photos large on the computer only to realize that the photos didn’t turn out. I think one of the biggest reason for this problem is that the tiny screen on the back of the camera doesn’t give me a good view of the photo as a whole.

About a year ago, I started searching out a way to make the camera wirelessly display my photos on the iPad or my Android phone so that I can view them larger during the shoot. This is also a great technique for professional photographers who want to show Mom the photos on the iPad while shooting photos of their children, for example.

I have developed a really nice workflow for doing this, and MANY MANY of you have asked me to share how I do this. So, Dustin and I hopped into the studio for a quick video tutorial (available at the top of this blog post if you’re viewing this via email).

If this is valuable to you, would you pin this on your Pinterest photography board?

Here’s the step-by-step…

Step 1: Get your gear together. You’ll need a camera that is compatible (virtually any DSLR made in the last 3 years will work) and an eye-fi x2 pro card.

Step 2: Set up the eye-fi card via the computer interface. Your eye-fi card has software available to make these changes. Define the network for when you’re shooting at home or in your studio. Then, set up direct mode to connect 30 seconds after not finding a wifi network. You may also want to configure the eye-fi card to only transmit the small jpegs and not the raw files.

Step 3: Set up your camera to shoot RAW plus small or medium JPEG. This will make the transfer much faster.

Step 4: On your iPad, go into the settings > Wireless > Connect to the router that the eye-fi card is connected to. If you’re working in a place that has no wifi router available (like when you’re outside), simply connect in direct mode to the eye-fi card, which will show up in your wi-fi networks after 30 seconds.

That’s it! You’re ready to connect the iPad wirelessly to your DSLR camera.Further Reading:

Looking through the right lens – What is next for you?

Dustin Olsen — Thu, 17 May 2012 17:06:39 +0000

Are we looking through the right lens? Many of the online students are asking that question as we become more comfortable with our cameras and the photos that we are taking! It’s an exciting feeling when we realize that we need better equipment to accommodate our growing talent of making photos! Seriously! Who needs a better reason to spend money?!

Let’s ask the question: What is our favorite type of photography?

Do we love those portraits or do we find joy in the majestic beauty of landscape photography? Maybe we get a rush with sports photography or find it hard to keep from drooling when it comes to stunning automotive photos.

Even if we like it all – we have to realize that we cannot go after it all at once and need to focus on just one area to start with. But let’s look into these different areas and what lens would be best for us:

Portrait Lenses

It’s no secret that a 50mm prime lens is what we want. However, there is a cheap version and an expensive option. Apart from the slightly smaller f/stop number and metal body on the more pricey option – the glass is the same and will virtually take the same photo! Go with the cheaper one – we can buy two more at the cost of one.

Also – we might want to consider getting a really nice telephoto lens (70-300mm) to take those amazing portraits. The ability to be farther away from our clients can increase their comfort level because we are not right in their face. This lens can also prove to be very versatile for us!

Landscape Lenses

Getting that wide shot is very important! Look into getting a really wide lens (10-24mm) so that we can be really close be see a lot through our lens. These can be expensive, but worth the money because of our growing talent!

Sport Lenses

Feel like going pro down on the field? We need a prime 400mm lens to stop that action dead in its tracks! To be considered a sports photographer, we need to have a serious telephoto lens so that we can be close without actually being a part of the action. Depending on the big leagues we want to get in to, it is required that we have a certain lens.

Automotive Lenses

There isn’t a special lens that we would need for this type of photography. A wider lens would be nice to have on hand – but it depends on the photos we are trying to capture with a car.

Now we talk about the brand you want to buy! So many of us are on a budget when it comes to getting some new gear – then we look at the prices of some of these lenses we need and decide that we really have no budget (it kind of gives a whole new meaning to jaw-dropping prices). However, we accept that fact that Canon is going to make the best lenses for your Canon camera… the same goes for our Nikon cameras. Finding a “more affordable” lens does not mean we are going to get the same results. We might have the focal length we need but the photo will still be blurry. And no one wants a blurry photo!

As a disclaimer – there are really good alternative lenses that take really good photos. We just have to test them out before putting all our eggs in one basket!

What is the next lens we are going to get? Depends on what we love the most right now! Follow these additional links for more detailed information to help us look through the right lens:

http://improvephotography.com/1148/cheap-telephoto-lens-canon-nikon/

http://improvephotography.com/jims-recommended-photography-gear/recommended-lenses/

http://improvephotography.com/1098/prime-or-zoom-lens-dslr/

http://improvephotography.com/967/difference-cheap-expensive-lens-camera-dslr/Further Reading:

Nikon 28-300mm review: Best photowalk and travel lens ever?

Jim Harmer — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:28:32 +0000

Image Source: Nikon, Inc.

If you just came to find out the answer to the question in the headline, if the Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR AF-S lens is the best photowalk lens ever, then yes. Yes, it is. If you were looking for something a bit more in-depth, then I’ll gladly oblige.

Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6

I often get emails from photographers asking what is the best “all around” general lens for travel photography or for photowalks. They want sharp photos and high quality optics in a lens that is inexpensive (read: cheap) and has a giant zoom range so they can take photos from all sorts of angles without moving their feet. When the good folks over at BorrowLenses.com offered to send one out to me so I could review it here on the site, I thought it would be the perfect opportunity to see if this lens is as good as the hype builds this Nikon lens up to be.

There are a few use cases that I thought this lens would be perfect for: (1) Casually shooting outdoor pictures of the kids. I say “outdoor” because it isn’t the fastest lens, but the gigantic zoom range would help to shoot in many different situations without changing lenses. (2) Travel photography or photowalks where you want to take nice pictures of the area, but you are shooting somewhat casually on the go and don’t want to haul around a giant bag of gear. (3) Shooting well-lit sports games. Again, it isn’t terribly fast so you need good lighting, but the giant zoom range would be convenient for shooting little league sports where the players can be right up close to you on one side of the field, and later be far away on the other side of the field.

So, I will admit that I wanted this lens to be a winner before I even tested it. However, I try to be an impartial judge

What does the Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 lens do well?

First of all, the Nikon 28-300 is an incredible deal. I found it selling for only $920 on Amazon. I know that the word “only” in connection with anything that costs $920 may sound a bit unsavory, but remember that the Canon version of this lens costs nearly 3 times more, and you’re getting a very sharp lens.

Speaking of sharpness, I was blown away when I loaded the images on my computer and saw how sharp this lens is despite its giant zoom range. From edge to edge and throughout the zoom range, I was pleasantly surprised at the sharpness I saw. In fact, I would say that the degree of sharpness is on par with most lenses that cost twice as much money. No other lens with such a huge zoom range compares to the degree of sharpness on this little beauty.

What are some of the disadvantages to the 28-300mm lens?

As I mentioned in the introduction, I was hoping to use this lens for shooting the kids at the park. The problem? The kids move FAST and this lens does not autofocus very quickly. Despite it’s silent wave motor, I was somewhat surprised that this lens did not focus more quickly. Obviously, this is to be expected somewhat because the lens has to move the elements far in order to focus at 28mm on the short end and 300mm at the long end. So, the first disadvantage to this lens is that the autofocus is a bit more sluggish than the lenses I usually shoot with.

At 28mm, there is more distortion than I would like to see, but this is also not a surprise given the gigantic zoom range.

What other lenses should I consider that are similar to the Nikon 28-300mm VR lens?

The 28-300mm lens is an FX lens, which means it will work on both a full frame camera (Nikon D700, Nikon D3s, etc) as well as crop frame cameras like the D7000, D5100, D3100, or the D300s. Read more about the difference between crop frame and full frame cameras here. Anyway, the main advantage to choosing the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR AF-S lens is that it will fit on crop frame and full frame cameras, but another option to look at if you shoot a crop frame camera is the Nikon 18-200mm. In my opinion, the only reason to choose the 18-200mm lens vs. the Nikon 28-300mm lens is that the 18-200mm lens costs less than the 28-300mm. So, if price is an issue and you have a crop frame camera, that might be a lens to consider; however, the 18-200 is not nearly as sharp and isn’t built quite so solidly.

If you shoot Canon, but you want to enjoy the 28-300mm lens wave, you are mostly out of luck unless money grows on a tree around your house. The Canon 28-300mm lens costs two and a half times more than the Nikon, at $2,500.

Conclusion

I can safely say that the Nikon 28-300mm is the best deal in the entire Nikon line of lenses (except for the 50mm, which is tough to beat at $120). This is one of the sharpest lenses you’ll find for less than $1,000 and to achieve such optical sharpness with such an incredible zoom range is unheard of. Do not walk, run to your nearest camera store and buy a copy of this sub-$1,000 piece of optical beauty. Better yet, rent it from BorrowLenses as a thank you for providing this lens for me to test out.Further Reading:

Product Review: Clik Elite Large Hiker Camera Bag

Jim Harmer — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 18:40:53 +0000

I bought the Clik Elite Large Hiker Camera Bag last week before heading up to Goat Lake for a LONG and laborious hike. Anybody daily readers of this site know that I’m a total fanboy of the Clik Elite camera bags. I like that they are built for rough treatment (always have rain covers, a zillion pockets, waist belts, and are built like a tank).

I already own the Clik Elite Pro camera bag, which is probably fits more gear than any other camera bag on the planet. It’s my go-to bag that I use for most shoots. Since I like that bag so much, I decided to get the Clik Elite Large Hiker camera bag so I could take it on a 3-day backpacking trip.

I found the bag to be ergonomic, comfortable, and has a reasonably large camera compartment to bring just enough gear for photography while camping.

The trouble with the bag is that it doesn’t have anywhere to strap on a sleeping bag very easily, and I couldn’t get the straps for the tripod to hold my tripod in place, so I had to run to Walmart and buy some more straps to hook on the sleeping bag and tripod…. not cool.

PROS:

Has TONS of pockets all over the place. Trust me… you don’t have enough little gadgets to fill the pockets no matter how hard you try.
The camera compartment fits a pro-size DSLR with battery grip and a wide-angle lens attached with hood facing forward.
Enough other compartments to fit a lens like a 28-300, a fisheye, or other standard lens sizes. One other compartment that can BARELY fit a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 with lens hood reversed if you take out one layer of padding on the bottom.
Rain cover (A necessity for hikers)
Place to put your water bladder or other hydration system.
Nice waist belt
Comfortable and ergonomic

Cons:

Ladder-fit system isn’t quite tall enough. I’m only 5’10″ and I’m on the highest setting. This is also true of my Clik Elite Pro bag, so tall people might not like these bags. If you’re average height, you’ll love it.
Shoulder straps could use some extra padding. This is also true on the Clik Elite Pro camera bag.
No place to strap on a sleeping bag very easily.
Pretty tough to strap on a full-weight tripod. If you have a travel tripod, you’ll be fine.

Conclusion: This is probably the best day hike camera bag ever made, but it has some limitations for use as an overnight pack.

Further Reading:

The Best (and Worst) Cheap Telephoto Lenses: A review

Jim Harmer — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:08:31 +0000

This is EXACTLY why you need to be careful what telephoto lens you buy. I took this photo with the Tamron 200-500mm lens. The image quality is a disaster (Click to enlarge).

A long telephoto or supertelephoto lens is generally very expensive. For example, Nikon’s 500mm f/4 lens costs about $8,500. If you missed it, I wrote a post about a month ago explaining why the “pro” telephoto lenses are so expensive. Still, photographers want the extra reach of a long zoom lens without needing to sell a kidney or pawn off a first-born child. The following is my review of the cheapest telephoto zoom lenses on the market. Certainly, there are other lenses that could fit into this category, but I consider these to be the most popular choices among photographers.

Cheap Telephoto Zoom Lenses for Nikon

Nikon 70-300mm - This $500 lens is actually quite good for the price. It is sharp, has a convenient zoom range, and includes image stabilization. This is probably the most popular telephoto zoom in Nikon’s line-up of lenses. You can check the current price of this lens on Amazon here.

Nikon 80-400mm – It has been rumored for two years or more that an update to this lens is imminent, but we haven’t seen it yet. The Nikon 80-400mm lens is quite outdated. It is not sharp, slow to auto-focus, and is drastically over-priced. I rented this lens a little while ago for a shoot in SW Florida, you can see a sample image taken with this lens here. Check the current price of this lens on Amazon here.

Cheap Telephoto Zoom Lenses for Canon

Canon 70-300mm – The Canon 70-300mm is quite similar in terms of quality to the Nikon 70-300mm lens. This popular telephoto zoom lens offers good image quality at a great price point. Check the current price on Amazon here.

Canon 75-300mm – This is the perfect lens for new photographers on a budget who still want to be able to zoom in on the action. At a price of only $150, this is a bargain. While this lens does not offer image stabilization and the sharpness is nothing more than acceptable, it is a lightweight and inexpensive alternative for Canon photographers who need a bit more zoom. It’s not much of a photo, but here is an example picture that I took with this lens. Check the current price of this lens on Amazon.

Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Lens – Like the Nikon 80-400mm lens, this lens is not cheap. It costs approximately $1,600; however, I included this lens in the list because it is cheap when compared to the pro level telephoto lenses mentioned in the introduction. This lens is probably the best telephoto lens on this list, though it is also the most expensive. However, I have found the image quality of this lens to be slightly less than that of other L-series lenses. This is a push-pull lens, which increases its likelihood of getting dust inside the lens. Check the current price of this lens on Amazon.

Third-Party Cheap Telephoto Lenses (Generally available for Canon, Nikon, and Sony DSLR cameras)

Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM Telephoto Lens – No this isn’t a typo. This lens and the next lens on this list have similar names, but they are very different lenses. This lens costs about half what the newer version of this lens costs, but it is still a great lens. Here’s a link to the Nikon version on Amazon. Here’s a link to the Canon version on Amazon.

Tamron 200-500mm – I was recently given the opportunity to spend a day testing out lenses with Tamron. I was very impressed with one or two of their lenses, but this lens was shockingly horrible. It’s a slow lens, the autofocus was terrible, and the image quality was a pure disaster. Seriously, I can’t get over how bad this lens was. I’m not even going to include a link for this one to check the price, because it is so terrible that I wouldn’t wish this lens upon any photographer.

If you are interested in learning portrait photography, sign up to take my 30-day online portrait photography class that begins August 8, 2011! In this class, I will teach the most important fundamentals of portrait photography. The 30-day online course will include live group training sessions with me, assignments, photo reviews where I give feedback on your photos, articles, video tutorials, etc. Click here to learn more about this class.

Further Reading:

Nikon 10-24mm Lens Review

Jim Harmer — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:11:22 +0000

The official name for this lens is the AF-S Nikkor 10-24mm 1:3.5-4.5 ED DX lens, and in this review I can offer a unique perspective because, unlike most reviewers, I have shot tens of thousands of shots with this lens.

Who is the Nikon 10-24mm lens intended for?

To really understand what this lens is used for, you need to first read this post on the difference between full-frame and crop sensor cameras, and then read this post on wide-angle lenses. You see, this lens is for landscape photography, but there are dozens of popular landscape photography lenses on the market. To understand this lens, you need to know that it is only for crop sensor cameras (if your camera cost less than $2,400 then it’s a crop sensor). Also, you need to know that there is a HUGE difference between 10mm and the 18mm kit lens that came with your camera.

In short, this lens is built for landscape photographers who are willing to pay for quality, and who shoot with non full-frame Nikon DSLRs (such as a Nikon D3100, Nikon D5100, Nikon D90, Nikon D7000, or Nikon D300s).

What’s so great about this lens?

Probably the most important feature of this lens is the focal length. Even on a crop sensor camera, a 10mm lens has an extremely wide angle of view. In fact, you have to really watch the edges of the frame or else your feet or the legs of your tripod will be in the picture! This wide angle of view is absolutely essential for landscape photography. It makes the viewer feel like he or she is standing in the place where you took the picture. It draws the viewer in.

After the focal length, the next best feature of this lens is the close focus distance. I heard a great quote a few months ago: “If you want a good landscape lens, just find the widest lens with the closest focusing distance.” Obviously that’s too simplistic. There are other factors that impact the quality of a lens, but I agree that how close the lens can focus is vitally important to a good landscape lens. This allows you to put a foreground object up close to the lens and give the photo a sense of depth. I was shocked after first buying this lens when I heard the comforting focus beep when I was focusing on a rock only 8 inches from the lens! That is simply unheard of in the world of landscape lenses.

The third factor that sets this lens apart from the competition is actually the Nikkor name. I considered buying the Sigma 10-20mm lens or the Tokina 11-16mm lens instead of the Nikon 10-24, but I read so many reviews from photographers that had broken those lenses that I didn’t want to invest in a junker. Buying photography gear is a big expense, and I wanted something that would last a LONG time.

What’s just average about this lens?

Compared to the optical quality of most other Nikon lenses, I would say that the 10-24 is only slightly above average; however, when comparing it to the optical quality of most Sigma, Tokina, or Tamron lenses, I would say that this lens is a significant upgrade. I am happy with the sharpness of this lens in most situations, but it is not as sharp as some of my other Nikon glass.

The Nikon 10-24mm lens

The sharpness of the lens varies from fair to good depending on focal length and aperture. The chromatic aberration is fairly well controlled in most situations, but can become slightly visible under some conditions. The vignetting really isn’t bad at all when compared to other super-wide angle lenses.

Also, the lens does not have a constant aperture. When shooting at 10mm, you can achieve an aperture of f/3.5, but when shooting at 24mm, the lens can only achieve an aperture of f/4.5. This is rarely important, since most landscape photography is done at higher apertures such as f/16 or f/18 in order to achieve maximum depth of field.

What’s not so good about this lens?

First of all, the price of the Nikon 10-24mm lens is not fantastic. It costs about $1,000 (check the current price on Amazon here). I think this lens is slightly over-priced, but then again… I can’t think of another lens with similar quality that offers such a wide angle of view.

The distortion on the lens is quite dramatic at 10mm. That’s obviously to be expected, but it seems to be more out-of-control on this lens than on other wide-angle lenses. Fortunately, the new lens correction tools in Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw can help to remove some of the distortion if you want perfect lines.

Here’s a link to check out this lens on Amazon.com. You can also buy this lens from B&H Photo or from Adorama if they have a lower price. I would recommend that you only buy this lens from one of those three sources, because I have seen many photographers get scammed from black market sellers online. If the price is too good to be true… don’t buy it!Further Reading:

8 Photography Splurges Worth the Money

Jim Harmer — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:47:34 +0000

Believe it or not, I actually spent $1.20 on this corny stock photo. It was the only one that illustrated this article...

Splurge #1: A large camera bag. I have used a Lowepro bag for quite some time and it never fit all the gear I need for a shoot. So I kept some of the gear in the bag and simply held the other stuff or kept it in the manufacturer’s lens bag. I never bought a bigger bag until I dropped a $2,500 lens because I was juggling too much gear. That experienced helped me to realize that you NEED a protective camera bag or you are risking the breakage of your gear. In terms of bags, I recommend the Lowepro Fastpack 250 for hobbyists who don’t have large pro lenses, or the ThinkTank Streetwalker Harddrive for more serious photographers who have a few larger lenses, or the Clik Elite Pro for photographers with a lot of gear who like the backpack style bags.

Splurge #2: A QUALITY circular polarizer. That $20 polarizer you bought at the camera store might look okay in your shots until you try a decent one. In my experience, the difference between a cheap polarizer and a decent one can be quite stunning. If you’re in the market for a good polarizer, you need to look on your lens to see what size you need. Then, pick a brand. I really like the Nikon polarizer and have heard good things about the Singh Ray polarizers (I haven’t personally used the Singh Ray polarizer, but I use their other products and can vouch for the company).

Splurge #3: A decent ballhead. It seems that most beginning photographers heed the advice to buy a solid tripod; unfortunately, when they buy a decent tripod, they often buy the legs that includes a cheap 3-way pan head on it. Those cheap heads simply won’t cut it. They suffer from creep, are difficult to precisely adjust, are overly bulky, and won’t last more than a year in most cases. If you want to step up to a good ballhead, the cheapest one that I can recommend is the Vanguard BH-100. If you are ready to buy the best ballhead that money can buy (and you’ll need a lot of money…), then check out the Really Right Stuff ballheads.

Splurge #4: A true wide-angle lens. I don’t think I’ve ever taught a landscape photography class without at least one student asking why photographers spend $1,000 or more on a 10mm lens when the kit lens already goes down to 18mm (for crop sensor cameras). There is a HUGE difference between a 10mm lens and an 18mm lens. For more on wide-angle lenses, check out this previous post.

Splurge #5: Stabilized lenses. I liken this argument to the manual vs. automatic debate for cars. Sure, a manual transmission car might save you $300 on the purchase price, but automatic so much more smooth and simple! Modern image stabilization can recover up to FOUR STOPS! Yes, the stabilization is always worth it.

Splurge #6: Name brand batteries. I tried to save a buck once on a cheap camera battery. It was half the price of the Canon battery, but it didn’t last nearly as long and leaked power. Many of the cheap batteries are not certified, so they can actually be dangerous to you and can hurt the camera by heating up too much. It’s just not worth saving $20 on a battery to risk a camera that cost hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Splurge #7: A REAL underwater housing for your DSLR. I am not an underwater photographer, but since I lived near the ocean, I have seen several photographers ruin their DSLRs with a cheap $100 underwater housing. If even a hair from your head falls on the Zip-loc part of the bag, you can kiss your DSLR goodbye. If you want to dabble in underwater photography, buy a Panasonic underwater point-and-shoot or get ready to spend $1,000 on a real underwater housing.

Splurge #8: A camera strap. The strap that came with your camera might be free, but it also saws through your neck during a long shoot. Check out this review of the Black Rapid strap, and then buy yourself a Black Rapid R-strap on Amazon for Father’s Day whether you’re a father or not.Further Reading:

What Does a Lens Hood Do?

Jim Harmer — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:16:32 +0000

What could be more exciting than a 300mm lens with a lens hood sitting on a stump?

Everytime I see one of my photography students with the lens hood on backwards, I know they don’t know what the lens hood does. The lens hood is designed to reduce flare and protect the lens, among other things.

What is the purpose of a lens hood?

The lens hood is a piece of plastic that clips onto the front of a camera lens and extends beyond it. Lens hoods serve two primary purposes: (1) reducing lens flare, and (2) protecting the lens from damage. The intended purpose of the lens hood is simply to reduce lens flare, but the protection it provides to the glass elements of the lens is a beneficial side-effect.

Why are many lens hoods shaped so funny?

What you’re probably referring to is the shape of what is called a “petal lens hood.” The shape of a petal lens hood allows it to extend as far as possible beyond the lens without showing up in the frame. Lenses are circular, but the pictures we take are rectangular. If these petal lens hoods were perfectly round, the corners of the hood would be in the picture. The only thing worse than getting a lens hood in the picture is when you hand your point and shoot to Uncle Harry, who puts his finger right over the lens when he takes a picture… ugh!

But not all lens hoods are petal lens hoods. Some lens hoods are completely enclosed without the weird cut-out shape. This type of lens hood is called a “round lens hood.” Prime lenses have round lens hoods more often than zooms, because they don’t have the added difficulty of keeping out of the way as the camera zooms out.

Should I use a lens hood on my camera?

The short answer is yes. I almost always have a lens hood on my camera. While shooting without a lens hood can still produce great pictures most of the time, if any light happens to bounce into the lens from the sides, the contrast and color in the image is significantly reduced. Also, it is nice to have a lens hood for protection of the lens.

However, there are some lenses on which a lens hood is simply unnecessary. I recently saw one of my photography students with a lens hood on his 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. It looked quite strange because most people don’t use a hood on that lens. The reason is that the plastic on the lens already extends behind the glass of the lens, so the glass is recessed. Therefore, the lens itself acts as a lens hood. There is nothing wrong with using a lens hood on such a lens, but it is hardly necessary in most situations.

Do lenses come with a lens hood, or do I need to buy one?

Some lenses come with the hood, and others do not. Canon generally provides a lens hood for the L series (professional) lenses, but not for the consumer level lenses. For those lenses, you’ll need to head on over to Amazon.com and buy one for around $20.

If you are either really cheap or just love doing things yourself, you can actually make a lens hood by going to this website and following the directions.Further Reading:

Prime Lenses vs. Zoom Lenses

Jim Harmer — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 05:42:27 +0000

I frequently receive emails from beginning photographers who have heard that prime lenses are better than zoom lenses, and they want to know if they should buy a prime. A prime lens is simply a lens that cannot zoom from one focal length to another; in fact, prime lenses are often referred to as fixed focal length lenses. A ”yes” or “no” answer to the debate surrounding the prime vs. zoom lenses question is far too simplistic, so I thought it would be helpful to explain the issues that should be considered before choosing prime or zoom lenses for your DSLR camera.

Why did photographers stay away from zoom lenses in the past?

Lenses are incredibly sophistacted tools that require precision engineering and ingenuity to achieve crisp images, fast focus, and low costs. Try to imagine an engineer designing a lens 15 or 20 years ago. They literally used slide rules and primitive four-function calculators. Such an approach would be impossible in today’s world. Further, the lenses were often created for cheap film cameras that simply did not produce the detail of today’s DSLRs.

When a zoom lens is created, the engineers must design the lens to produce sharp images at any focal length within the lens’s range. Not surprisingly, this task was not precise without the aid of computers. Further, the lenses themselves did not have computer chips in them to transfer critical information to the camera and within the lens.

The long and short of it is that zoom lenses used to be a disaster. The images were rarely sharp. Lens engineers did not have the tools available to them to create advanced zoom lenses.

Do prime lenses have advantages over zoom lenses even today?

In short, yes! For the very reasons stated above, prime lenses can be produced much more cheaply and with greater sharpness than zoom lenses. Also, because the focus ring does not need to search as far a distance to find focus since only one focal length is available on prime lenses, prime lenses always focus faster than their zoom lens counterparts if all else is equal.

Are prime lenses sharper than zooms?

In my experience, the answer is yes; however, not by the margin that many photographers make it out to be. Prime lenses are generally much sharper than cheap zoom lenses (under $500), but many of the pro level zoom lenses are on the same level as the prime lenses.

Also, keep in mind that even a prime lens will not produce sharp images if it is made cheaply. I often hear photographers comment on how sharp the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens is, but I have personally never found that lens to be anything more than acceptably sharp. Many photographers hear that “prime lenses are sharper” and somehow expect that to mean that ALL prime lenses are sharp, and that simply isn’t true.

When to choose prime, and when to choose zoom

When it comes down to which lens to buy, the fact is that it depends greatly on the lens. For example, I would ALWAYS recommend that a beginning photographer purchase a 50mm f/1.8 lens (check the price here for Nikon, or here for Canon), but in my opinion that lens cannot approach the optical quality of the Nikon or Canon 24-70mm lens; however, the 24-70 is significantly more expensive.

If a photographer is interested in a super-telephoto lens for sports or wildlife photography, almost any professional photographer would prefer a prime super-telephoto to a zoom super-telephoto for the advantage of faster focusing, slightly sharper images, and the ability to achieve lower apertures.

When it comes to the prime vs. zoom lens debate, the real answer is that it depends on the lens. The purpose of this article is to bring to your attention the advantages and disadvantages of zooms and prime lenses, and to point out that the simplistic “primes are better” mentality is simply outdated and overly simplistic.Further Reading:

Canon vs. Nikon: What’s the difference? (Updated for 2012)

Jim Harmer — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:05:22 +0000

Canon versus Nikon

I know what you’re thinking, and I think you’re wrong. That may be a confrontational way to start this post, but this Nikon vs. Canon DSLR debate is fueled by such passion in 2012 that I have to explain what we’re discussing here.

Both Canon and Nikon DSLR cameras provide fantastic image quality and similar features. Because there are so many similarities between the brands, many people think that it makes no difference which brand you choose. While I agree that either brand will give great results, I believe there are important differences between the brands that may inform your decision.

I must mention that there are–obviously–other brands to choose from. Sony and Pentax also make great cameras that are on-par or even exceeding many Canon and Nikon models. The only reason I haven’t included more about them in this article is because more than 90% of the people who use this site shoot Canon or Nikon. I have other articles where I discuss Sony and other brands.

Advantages of Nikon DSLR Cameras

Low-Light Performance. Over the past two years, few people would disagree that Nikon has generally served up superior low-light cameras than the comparable Canons.
Number of autofocus points. This one is controversial, but I think most people would agree with me. Head-to-head, most Nikons have more autofocus points than their Canon equivalents. When you get your camera, you’ll realize how important this is because sometimes the low number of autofocus points on Canon cameras means there isn’t an autofocus point for where you want to focus in the frame, forcing the photographer to focus and then recompose.
Flash Control. Nikon has had better built-in options for controlling off-camera flash for years. Canon has recently caught up, or almost caught up, with its new built-in flash triggers in the 7d, 60d, and T3i.
Larger APS-C sensors. Nikon uses slightly larger sensors in their crop sensor DSLR cameras. You can read about the difference between crop and full frame cameras here.
Availability of minor features. Over the years, Canon has been notorious for refusing to add in easy-to-fix features to their cameras. For example, Nikon has been better about including geotagging via GPS in the camera, and expanded auto-exposure-bracketing sequences. In this way, Nikon is more responsive to adding the “little features” into DSLRs–even if the two brands are mostly equal in all other respects.

Advantages of Canon DSLR Cameras

Video. No question on this one. Canon has creamed Nikon in terms of video performance. Nikon is starting to catch on with 1080p video and a basic autofocus system in its most recent releases, but still lags far behind Canon in this aspect. Canon DSLRs offer more frame rates, some Canons offer better codecs, etc.
Price. Nikon cameras and lenses are often slightly more expensive than Canon. Obviously, there are exceptions, but if you check the range of DSLRs and popular lenses, Nikons generally cost approximately 8% than the comparable Canon gear according to my calculations.
Megapixel Count. Most photographers don’t care about this, but it is handy to be able to crop in tight with more megapixels. Canons have outperformed Nikons in terms of pixel count for a few years now.
Availability. When Canon announces a new camera, you can generally expect to get it in your hands within a short period of time. When Nikon announces a new camera or lens (especially higher-end gear), it frequently takes 4 to 6 months before it is available…. sometimes longer!
Focus motors. All modern Canon lenses have built-in focus motors. While most Nikon lenses (and certainly all the pro lenses) have focus motors, the beginner DSLRs made by Nikon cannot use all of the Nikon lenses.

Differences That “Might” Matter

Canon is a much larger company than Nikon. It creates printers, cameras, video equipment, binoculars, calculators, and more. Nikon is a much smaller company which focuses almost exclusively on cameras (though they also make sports optics and film scanners). This factor may or may give an advantage to one company or the other, but I’ll let you draw your own conclusions here. Canon may have an edge for the resources of a huge mega-company, or Nikon may have the edge for being focused on one main product.

The “cool” factor. Come on, we all know that the huge cream-colored lenses on the sidelines of sports events always catch our eyes. Admit it. The Canon L lenses look cooler than the dull black Nikons Canon actually claims that the white lenses aren’t a fashion thing, but actually an engineering decision to lower heat, among other things. (If you’re a law nerd, you’ll recognize this as extremely stupid, because it militates against them getting a trademark for cream-colored lenses if it the trademark is functional).

So what DSLR camera is best for beginning photographers?

Both the Canon Rebel DSLRs and the entry-level Nikon DSLR cameras are very good. I know that it can be agonizing to choose between them. Generally, I recommend this Canon camera for beginning photographers who are interested in DSLR video or portraits. If you’re more into wildlife, landscape, candids, or flash photography, then I’d give a slight edge to this Nikon camera. By the way, I’m continually updating these camera recommendations as both companies release new products. I changed these camera recommendations most recently on September 15, 2011.

What’s your personal choice?

I’m personally a Nikon photographer, having recently jumped ship from the land of Canon. I switched for the low-light performance of Nikons, but I’m sure Canon will catch up very soon and then I’ll look longingly to the other side of the fence. It was a fit for me at the time, but I think Canons are just as good or better in other respects.

The purpose of the post was to inform you of some of the differences, not to persuade you one way or the other. Do you disagree with me on my analysis? Send in a comment below and tell me how wrong I am. I don’t mind Also, make sure to LIKE ImprovePhotography on Facebook so you can get our daily photography tips.Further Reading: