[Spoonman]

I looked around for a thread about this but couldn't find one, so I thought I'd post the question.

For all you veteran urban streetscape photographers out there, what kind of cameras/equipment do you use? I am saving up for an SLR and have been doing some preliminary research, but frankly I don't know the faintest thing about cameras. What kinds of makes/models do you recommend? How about accessories? I'd like to be able to capture everything from street scenes of people going about their daily business, to minute architectural details. Any suggestions would be great.

 

[flar]

A DSLR offers the most control, and more and more people are using them as they become cheaper. I'd recommend Nikon or Canon over other brands because of the greater selection of lenses, especially used ones.

There are some downsides to SLR's that should be considered. First, they're big, so less portable. And people notice an SLR, so it's more difficult to take candid shots. Not necessarily a downside, but people will always ask you why you're taking pictures even if you're not taking their picture, while if you were using a point & shoot no one would care or notice. Second, lenses are expensive, especially ones that cover the same range as a P&S camera. That means two or more lenses (wide and telephoto), and that means you have to change lenses a lot, which is a hassle. Third, to get the best out of the camera, you'll have to learn a bit about photography. Depending on how interested you are this is not necessarily a downside either.

Some of the higher end digital P&S cameras are awesome and can do almost as much as a DSLR with more convenience.


I have a Nikon D50 with an 18-55 mm wide lens and 55-200 mm telephoto. I shoot in aperture priority mode usually at f8 for buildings if it's bright outside. I usually use a wide angle lens for buildings. The telephoto is necessary for people shots with blurred background. Depth of field control is difficult on P&S cameras. You would also need telephoto for architectural details.

Example using telephoto, 200mm in downtown Hamilton, I was across the street:

Telephoto also compresses perspective, 112mm makes Kitchener look like a big city:

A wide angle is necessary to fit buildings in the frame, 18mm Piggot Building in Hamilton:

 

[Hydrogen]

Nice, flar.

As people tend to shoot far more images with digital than with film, it should be noted that the shutter often fails after 30,000 to 40,000 shots - even on the expensive digital camera bodies.

 

[urbandreamer]

I'm waiting for a price drop on the Nikon D80. If I wait 6 months it should be a $300 discount--about $1000. Until then, it's all film all the way.

 

[Spoonman]

Flar, thanks so much for the tips (as well as the lovely sample photos). I will keep all this in mind as I continue my research..

 

[nstuch]

if you go with a Nikon DSLR i would highly recommend the Nikon VR (vibration reduction) 18-200 lens that came out a couple of years ago. it is so good, and so popular that it is still hard to get one worldwide as demand is so high. it's about $1000 Canadian but it is very versatile and is the only lens you'll ever need

 

[flar]

^^I'd get that lens too, but I can't afford it right now.

 

[nstuch]

another huge advantage of DSLRs is battery life. most will take 1000-2000pictures between charges assuming that you're not using the flash all the time

 

[Spoonman]

Telephoto also compresses perspective, 112mm makes Kitchener look like a big city:

Flar, quick question. What kind of aperture setting did you use for this shot? I'm guessing it was closed down quite a bit because of the high depth of field. Just trying to get tips for making shots like this.

Also, how reliable are the broad-range zooms (e.g. 18 - 200mm) at either extreme? Would you get more distortion than in, say, a wide-angle - normal and a normal - telephoto at the same focal lengths (I guess the answer is that it depends on the quality of the lenses, right)?

 

[flar]

^^that Kitchener shot is at f8. If everything in the shot is far away, depth of field isn't usually a problem. If one thing in the picture were closer than everything else, the focus zone would be noticable.

As for the broad range zoom lenses, the cheaper ones will likely be "soft" and have more distortion at the extremes. They also won't focus quickly. That's why I didn't get one (I looked at the Sigma 18-200 and some other one). Instead I got two cheap zoom lenses that covered their smaller ranges better. For three times as much money I could have got the Nikkor 18-200VR mentioned above, which probably focuses quickly and gives good quality throughout its range, but that's why it costs more.