Choosing a DSLR and lenses for portrait and landscapes

[AB26]

Go to town on that and one flash isn't enough.

John,

I am not sure I will agree with you on that one. A single on camera flash can go a long way, it is that little IN camera flash that is pretty useless except for triggering another flash.

This was done with a single on camera flash, my SB80.

Mahala, Zero PP but sharpening:

[Manfred M]

the people who know their game say you need the best flash you can buy. .

Can't agree with that statement. I have both a SB600 and SB900.

In theory the SB600 was a "mistake" based on your statement,as it is not the "top of the line". It was not a mistake at all, because it does a perfectly adequate job when I am traveling. It weighs less and takes up significantly less space in my bag. If I need more raw power or need optical triggering of a slave, etc. then it does make more sense.

My recommendation would be to buy the flash (or any other equipment) that is most suitable for you, not necessarily the best that you can afford.

Do I think that going for a SB900 is going to gain you a lot over your SB800; I rather doubt it, unless it has a specific feature that you need that the SB800 does not have. Just a warning on the SB900; the reason Nikon discontinued it replaced it with the SB910 because it overheats quickly if you are shooting a lot over a short period of time.

I don't consider myself to be in that category of shooter, but I have shut mine down often enough. I know I can do an override on the thermal protection, but I don't want to shorten the lifespan of the unit. If you still want the SB900 power and functionality; go for the SB910 instead, where Nikon has fixed that problem.

Personally, I also disagree about your advice on tripods; in my view a good one is mandatory for serious landscape work, that I would put ahead of the flash purchase.

The only Photographer not using flash is the one not knowing how to use it! That was me, until two weeks ago..

As long as you continue to advocate using of bounce flash using a wall or ceiling with on-camera flash for portraiture, I would argue that you still have a way to go before you understand how to use it. Personally, I think you will get more out of investing in a stand, umbrella bracket and umbrella with your SB800 than you will moving over to a camera mounted SB900 for portraiture.

[Venser]

I can no longer do what I want to do with an SB80, I now need the SB900.

If you're new to using flash, what's wrong with the SB-700?

The only Photographer not using flash is the one not knowing how to use it! That was me, until two weeks ago.

Say what? I rarely use flash units because my style of photography often doesn't require them. There's nothing I love more than blanket generalizations.

[ajohnw]

If you have an in camera flash it's adequate for macro work and fitted with a diffuser the effect is similar in some ways to using bounce. Built in flash can also be used for fill in. All bounce does is diffuse the light off something that may have inherent colour and that can cause all sorts of problems and explains why ceilings are popular - once white ceilings were very common. The main problem with that is the lighting direction. A brolley and stand is the best option to get round wall colour problems.

Power levels seem low but somewhat higher ISO's can change that aspect. To be honest it's one of the 1st things I look for when buying a camera. I much prefer a camera with one built in but wouldn't let that over ride my choice of camera.

The biggest problem with them really is where they are on the camera, same when one is mounted on the camera in the normal way. Red eye. The flash is in the ideal position for that, be hard to find a better place. Fortunately that isn't a problem any more. The other one is macro work. At close distances the lens may mask the light. Same with separate flashes but people make snoods for them.

The main thing I was pointing out is that a lot can be learnt from them especially if combined with natural light or in real terms even on their own. I still have a way to go on that - all of those available power levels. As to guide numbers I wish they were higher but take this on it's capable of F8 at 3 1/4m at ISO 200, 6 1/2m at ISO 400. That seems to be useful to me and that doesn't include a bit of allowable under exposure or the fact that the flash is providing all of the light needed. Olympus are miserable a bit over 1/2 that power on the E-M5 via the small clip on unit they supply. $200 extra to match the Canon and not mentioned as an OMD accessory. Nikon are similar to Canon.

I'd also guess that people go for ones that are way way more powerful than they actually need.

John
-

[Manfred M]

John - you missed another potentially significant downside of the built in flash; and that is a long lens can block the light and cast a shadow on the subject. This is in part related to being so close to the optical axis of the camera / lens. Flipping the camera upside down can work in landscape format, but is not as easy to solve in portrait format.

Of course the biggest downside is that it is on-camera and for most photography, it give flat and boring lighting.

[Pohled]

Hi,

I see the point of spending too much, that why's I tried to set the higher amount that I want to spend first, otherwise I'm going bankrupt.
We live in Rio, Brazil, here, photography gear is way more expensive than in USA. So, as my father is going to visit California next month, we're going to enjoy the opportunity to buy these things. I am down to earth and really don't expect to be the new Sebastião Salgado with my new toys in a just few weeks, but I intend to take some better photographs that really don't seem those ordinary one that we post in Facebook and Instagram


At the moment I guess that I should invest more in the camera body and lens and perhaps less in flash, so that I get used to "the basic", I'm afraid of getting too much at the same time and instead of making things easier, making them more difficult. I mean, not that I'm not purchasing a flash, but I think that I'm not going to need a top one for a long time.

So, for what I have read here, for a beginner, a 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens is going to serve me for most of my purposes until I reach a better level, right? And instead spending more money on another lens, I could spend it in a good flash. Sounds good?

[ajohnw]

Personally if buying a flash I would look carefully at what Metz in particular have available. These will be fully compatible and features well described on their web site. There are other makes about that will be cheaper too and compatible.

With regards brolley's silver and gold types provide a lot more output power than the white material types and I assume are still about. There are I believe other diffuser options as well. I haven't used anything like this for a long time and when I did it was in an equipped studio. I suspect these can still be hired if needed.

As for me if I need to singe peoples eyebrows I bought a down market hammer head with built in fill in flash. It's a purely electronic type and came on a substantial flash bracket and has a swing head. The flash bracket will prevent red eye if used on the camera and it's down market as many of these units are way too powerful for digital cameras. With cheap sensors etc it can be triggered in several ways. Have I used it yet - no - will I use it depends where I shoot one day which might even be never. Good reason to limit cost in my view. Some people seem to lust after versions that use a separate heavy battery to power them. Not at all sure why as I doubt if they are shooting film. There is need to do some research on problems and the type of guns to buy if some one else wants to do this. Flash gun triggers of old can have very high voltage which can damage the camera. There are isolation devices available and people do use them. The electronic guns have lower voltages, more power levels but may still need isolators on some cameras.

John
-

[Venser]

So, for what I have read here, for a beginner, a 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens is going to serve me for most of my purposes until I reach a better level, right? And instead spending more money on another lens, I could spend it in a good flash. Sounds good?

I don't know what you ultimately want to do, but I'd pick up something like the Canon 430 EX II (I assume this is the equivalent to the Nikon SB-700), or find what it replaced used, and call it a day. There's so much you can do with a single flash unit. I'd also find a way to trigger it remotely, either by using your built-in camera flash, or picking up a cord to do so. Once you get comfortable with that, move to an infrared or wireless system.

The cool thing with these flash units and their bigger brothers, is if you're into flash photography, they'll always have a use. Unless something breaks down on them, they'll be good for a very long time.

[RustBeltRaw]

I am down to earth and really don't expect to be the new Sebastião Salgado with my new toys in a just few weeks...

The fact that you already have specific photographic heroes is a good sign.

After discovering how to use flash I realized why the people who know their game say you need the best flash you can buy.

Untrue.

I can no longer do what I want to do with an SB80, I now need the SB900. ... No matter if it is a used flash, try and get a flash that can do the job, as Colin says.

A flash that does the job usually isn't a top-shelf OEM version (said the owner of 3x 600EX-RTs ). If you're a manual-power shooter, there's no real need for anything fancier than a LumoPro or an old Nikon with a slave eye. If you're a run-and-gun event shooter, TTL becomes handy, but most of that work is pretty short range and balanced with ambient, so you don't need the power. The main reasons for top-shelf hot shoe flashes are light, self-contained kits for shooting fairly far-away subjects via TTL, or for wireless power control when you don't have easy access to your lights, both of which are problems I have to work around pretty much every weekend. Still, I mitigated the cost by buying all of my lights used, and honestly, I could easily get away with a trio of similarly-powered manual flashes. You can buy three new LP-180s for the price of one new 600EX-RT.

Skimp on a tripod but not on flash if you are serious about portraits and landscapes (wildlife and even BIF). ... Yes you will soon find out what the value is of using flash for landscape photography.

Portraits, sure, and maybe birds in flight with a flash extender, but landscapes? Care to elaborate? I can only see it if you're light painting with strobes, which is a highly unconventional choice. A quality tripod and good technique should make a vastly greater difference than having a flash.

[AB26]

Manfred,

Does the SB600, 700 and 800 head swivel 180 degrees to the left and right?

You can get a pretty decent tripod for half the price of a decent flash.

If I have to choose between a tripod and a flash I will take the flash. It is almost always possible to support a camera in many different ways when using slower shutter speeds, shooting landscapes.

A tripod is pretty much useless without a flash when you shoot people in low light conditions.

[Venser]

Does the SB600, 700 and 800 head swivel 180 degrees to the left and right?

I know the SB-700 and SB-800 can. Don't know about the 600.

A tripod is pretty much useless without a flash when you shoot people in low light conditions.

Depends what you're trying to convey.


No flash.


Again, no flash.

All depends on what you're trying to achieve.

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

Does the SB600, 700 and 800 head swivel 180 degrees to the left and right?

You can get a pretty decent tripod for half the price of a decent flash.

If I have to choose between a tripod and a flash I will take the flash. It is almost always possible to support a camera in many different ways when using slower shutter speeds, shooting landscapes.

A tripod is pretty much useless without a flash when you shoot people in low light conditions.

The SB-600 tilts 90° and rotates 270°, so it exceeds the 180° rotation you are looking for. The SB-700 (which replaced the SB-600) and SB-800, I don't know, as I don't shoot them, but suspect they do. Generally, not functionality that is used in portraiture per se, but it can used for people shots, especially in event photography.

I would tend to disagree with you regarding the price of flash versus tripod; but that depends on how you define "decent". My own opinion is that you can get a decent flash for far less than a decent tripod. I own five flashes (two Nikons, one Metz and two Paul C Buff Einsteins) and three tripods (two Benro units (legs and heads) and one Feisol with a RRS head). My cheaper tripods are in the same price range of the flashes and my expensive one is way more; I find it far easier to work with a cheap flash than with a cheap tripod.

For a lot of my landscape work, nothing short of a very rigid tripod will do, as most of my shutter speeds are well below hand-hold range. Other than studio shots, most of my people pictures use existing light, sometimes with fill flash.

[ajohnw]

John - you missed another potentially significant downside of the built in flash; and that is a long lens can block the light and cast a shadow on the subject. This is in part related to being so close to the optical axis of the camera / lens. Flipping the camera upside down can work in landscape format, but is not as easy to solve in portrait format.

Of course the biggest downside is that it is on-camera and for most photography, it give flat and boring lighting.

Thought I had mentioned blocking in respect to macro work. As far as I am aware people come up with home brew solutions to that problem. I would be a touch surprised if an 18-135mm blocked flash at usable portrait shots - other than maybe seeing just why 18mm full frame mug shots wouldn't be that good an idea.

The flat lighting is another aspect - given so much ambient light and where it's coming from just how much power is needed and the effect on the subject.

All in all my feeling is that if I wanted to do the sort of work implied in places in this thread I would be looking at cheap studio lighting and not be considering flash at all. The results from these can be seen as they are set up. Not so with flash unless they are heads with modelling lights built in. If they were smaller often more difficult things to shoot I would also be wondering about soft boxes. I have to laugh when I say results can be seen - I'm reminded of an elderly gent in a camera club that could without fail set up a modelling light leaving no shadows at all and giving attractive photo's. Not an easy skill to learn. Then sometime shadows are needed but how much. Straight ordinary flash guns - a bit of a joke in some ways.. Their main advantage is portability and lighting wise have their limitations.

I'm also inclined to feel there is a need to get real. The OP is a beginner. It may get even worse - flash meters etc.

John
-

[tclune]

So, for what I have read here, for a beginner, a 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens is going to serve me for most of my purposes until I reach a better level, right? And instead spending more money on another lens, I could spend it in a good flash. Sounds good?

Sounds good to me.

[Manfred M]

Thought I had mentioned blocking in respect to macro work.

My point was that it extends well beyond macro work. Not being a macro shooter, I can only assume this to be true.

The flat lighting is another aspect - given so much ambient light and where it's coming from just how much power is needed and the effect on the subject.

Yes and no. If fill flash is used correctly with decent ambient light, I would have to agree with you. Unfortunately, there are too many shots where the shooter attempts to overpower the ambient light, and this is what I was referring to. If one overpowers the ambient, then the lighting must be done with care to ensure that the lighting produces an interesting, contoured image; which is impossible to do with on-camera flash.

All in all my feeling is that if I wanted to do the sort of work implied in places in this thread I would be looking at cheap studio lighting and not be considering flash at all.

Carefully said, studio lighting is (usually) flash as well; although there are some that use Kino-flo or LED sources. The issue is that both studio strobes and small flash are both "point source" lights that need some form of modifier to produce quality lights. I can generate virtually identical results, using studio lights and small flash when shooting with umbrellas and reflectors.

That being said, I can also get beautiful natural light shots, without having to resort to flash, but I timing and location are important. In a studio, I can do the shots any time of day or night.

[Manfred M]

So, for what I have read here, for a beginner, a 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens is going to serve me for most of my purposes until I reach a better level, right? And instead spending more money on another lens, I could spend it in a good flash. Sounds good?

To paraphrase what I said earlier on, the camera and that lens are going to be a very good start for the type of work you are planning to do. The shopping trip to the USA does complicate things a bit, as you are going to have to figure out what you need.

The issue with a flash is that you may or may not ever shoot with one. I am a flash shooter, so I would encourage you to go in that direction. The problem with flash is that simply mounting it on your camera's hot shoe is generally not going to give you particularly good results. Most of my flash work is "off camera", where I use a light modifier (usually a white convertable umbrella) and light stand to push light where I want it. I also shoot studio lights with soft boxes (these give me better control and more light than a Speedlite).

[Venser]

Most of my flash work is "off camera", where I use a light modifier (usually a white convertable umbrella) and light stand to push light where I want it. I also shoot studio lights with soft boxes (these give me better control and more light than a Speedlite).

Expanding on this notion, I couldn't tell you the last time I've fired a flash without a modifier. There's always something in front; soft box, umbrella, Honl speed grid, snoots, ....

If you head over to the Strobist, he'll have DIY methods for most light modifiers and/or links to inexpensive options. The beauty with flash is some well placed paper (opaque, white, colour, ...) and cardboard can mimic expensive options in terms of modifiers. Literally, there's so much you can do with one flash and you're nearest dollar store.

[Pohled]

Shooting in a studio or something like that isn't my goal at the moment. I guess that I still have a long way ahead until I can think about using so much equipment, but I appreciate your tips, GrumpyDiver.

I liked the 430EX suggestion, it's seem to be something I can afford and "decent"

For what I've searched, spending 1800 USD I could get a Canon 70D with a 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens.
Not sure if it would be worth spending anything else, for example a 75-300mm lens.

ps: after all the nice inputs here, I'll work hard to get nice shots of Rio de Janeiro and post here in the following months =D

[ajohnw]

There is this thread concerning birds that came up recently. Should be worth a look for comments and the results from lenses longer than 300mm. Talking loosely as it's difficult to be precise a 300mm lens should give you decent shots of things like a duck at maybe 10m. Getting sharp feather detail would be difficult but with things like ducks that doesn't matter too much, the patterns are the important aspect. Small birds and obtaining feather detail need to be taken from relatively short distances to get sharp feather detail. Very short distances even with a 500mm lens. Once lenses get that big they tend to be heavy and also expensive. The 70-300mm as I see it is a worth having and they are easy to handle but don't expect too much from it especially with birds say below duck size unless you get rather close. It's only possible to give rather loose guidance in this area.

Bird Photographers: What am I doing wrong???

John
-

[Polar01]

Jonathan: I am going to stay away from the flash comments as I use one about 5 times a year. I am going to suggest something about tripods, the first one you purchase will be somewhere around $100.00 US, 3 months later you realize it is carp and spend $200.00 on a better one, in one year's time you find that that one really does not give you what you want, so now it is a new $300.00 plus tripod (getting a sense of something here). Now most of us go through 5 tripods until we find something that fits our needs, so instead of spending $600.00 plus over the next two years look in the $400.00 to $500.00 range. Another thing to look at is a L-bracket, this allows you to turn your camera from landscape to portrait and back without having to move your tripod to re-center you camera BEST THING EVER.
I am going to add a link to a supplier, I am not suggestion that you purchase their tripods however go to the pull down "Be a Gear Expert">guides> choosing a tripod and read it over. Also check out their ball heads BH-55 and their L-brackets, their gear is high end and costs that said it is very well thought out and works, great service, I own the ball head and L-brackets.

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/s.nl...code=46&key=fr

Cheers: Allan