[Closed] DSLR shopping list

Right. I'd say:

Sturdy camera bag to keep everything in
Normal shoulder bag that has a secret pocket for your camera but can take other things
Minimal camera case so you can toss it in a rucksack, possibly accompanied by lenses in separate lens cases
Decide if you want a tripod or not, then if you do spend at least £100.

Oh, and a tilt and swivel flash - very important this if you want to take any pics indoors!

The bags are important because you a) want your camera with you, presumably, b) don't want to look a dork with tons of stuff and c) want a place to keep all the kit other than in a cardboard box.

What pictures are you going to take? This needs working out first.

If it's going to get much use, I'd recommend spending as much as you can on the tripod. A 'cheap' one may not survive for very long and could be cumbersome to adjust. It may also be a bit flexy and unstable. I certainly wouldn't buy a cheap one without having had a go of it first.

Not exactly what you're asking, but the first thing I buy with a new lens is a skylight filter.

Sturdy camera bag to keep everything in

I should've said, I've acquired one of [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lowepro-Slingshot-Digital-Lenses-Panasonic/dp/B000BAX50G ]these[/url] for packrat purposes.

Minimal camera case so you can toss it in a rucksack, possibly accompanied by lenses in separate lens cases

Good point well made - any recommendations?

Oh, and a tilt and swivel flash - very important this if you want to take any pics indoors!

Could you tell me a bit more about this, perhaps? I know, very vaguely, about the merits of off-camera flash but above and beyond that it's not something I've looked into or read up on yet.

If it's going to get much use, I'd recommend spending as much as you can on the tripod.

Yeah, I've read this advice before. Thing is, I'm thinking at this point (perhaps naively) that it'll be occasional use rather than a core part of my picture-taking. I wasn't going to bother with a tripod at all, but figured that for the sake of ten quid it was rude not to.

Not exactly what you're asking, but the first thing I buy with a new lens is a skylight filter.

No no, all advice is gratefully received, I'm coming to this pretty cold. Is that the sort of thing where you've got a darker (polarised?) gradient to make the sky more, uh, contrasty, or something else?

People often use a UV or skylight filter to protect the lens

I've recently done the same thing and had the same things as you on the list, although I bought a 70-300mm lens not a 50-250
I also bought a flight case from Maplin to keep the bits in, rather than stuffing them in a bag under the bed
[url= http://www.maplin.co.uk/flight-case-with-foam-36796?C=Brilliant1&U=P5%20Promo%202011&T=flight%20case&gclid=CPSqo6fRyagCFUtC4QodlCfQog&mckv=mkwid|snJ77DZGH|pcrid|7703392812|plid||kword| ]flight case[/url]

Good point well made - any recommendations?

Cullman Lagos. But there's also a caselogic one that's ok - I could send mine over if you like since it's now surplus.

UV and Skylight filters do a similar thing which is not much, but they protect the lens so if you tw*t the thing (very easy to do when it's roudn your neck) you have only lost a £10 filter.

They do cost SOME light (but not much) and a tiny bit of sharpness that you will not notice tho.

I loved a polarising filter on my film SLR for sunny days, but I haven't managed to make it do much at all on my digital. No idea why.

I would suggest that a £10 tripod isn't going to be much better than hand holding. And what would you use it for really? Don't just get it for the sake of it.

The flash allows you to bounce the flash of a wall or other object, which results in much more natural looking flash pictures. I can demonstrate tonight if you like. Massive difference.

Case wise I am a family man as you know, so we tend to be out doing family stuff and I bring my camera to snap whenever there's the opportunity. What I want is some kind of non-camera geek satchel or shoulder bag that has a camera pocket but mainly carries maps, drink bottle, half an uneaten sandwich, guide book etc etc.

I bought a 70-300mm lens not a 50-250

Yeah, I've got a 70-300 on loan atm and it's lovely. I suspect it was somewhat more expensive than the one I've linked though?

I also bought a flight case from Maplin to keep the bits in,

Oof, that's a belting idea. I've got a double-hard plastic version of one of those somewhere I think.

I could send mine over if you like since it's now surplus.

Seriously? That'd be awesome. Do you want owt for it?

UV and Skylight filters do a similar thing which is not much, but they protect the lens

*nods* noted, ta.

I would suggest that a £10 tripod isn't going to be much better than hand holding. And what would you use it for really? Don't just get it for the sake of it.

RRP is £50 but yeah, fair do's. I've no specific "use" for it at this stage other than "oh, that might come in handy".

The flash allows you to bounce the flash of a wall or other object, which results in much more natural looking flash pictures. I can demonstrate tonight if you like. Massive difference.

That'd be useful, yeah. Thanks.

What I want is some kind of non-camera geek satchel or shoulder bag that has a camera pocket

Ah, a man-bag. (-:

Seriously? That'd be awesome. Do you want owt for it?

How about some quality PC advice? Oh wait, you've already covered that 🙂

Uploading pics now.

No flash - about a two second exposure 🙂

[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5147/5681051624_e222c46e5a.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5147/5681051624_e222c46e5a.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5681051624/ ]No flash[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

Built in flash - see how it's quite harshly lit and flat because there are no shadows or shading. Sometimes you get a thin sharp shadow around everything, which I hate.

[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5061/5681051782_e10d544d5c.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5061/5681051782_e10d544d5c.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5681051782/ ]Built-in flash[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

Olympus F36 flash on the camera pointed straight ahead - the bottom of the shot is dark, I dunno why it ended up like that - doesn't normally. Still harsh, not that much difference to the built in flash.

[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5183/5681052360_29b1b0d422.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5183/5681052360_29b1b0d422.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5681052360/ ]F36 pointed straight ahead[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

Flash swiveled to point at the same wall with the window in it, so the direction of reflected light is similar to the natural light coming in from the window:

[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5144/5680490259_8361c8a6d0.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5144/5680490259_8361c8a6d0.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5680490259/ ]F36 bounced off wall[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

And finally, bounced of the ceiling. The lighting is very even and still mostly shadow free.

[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5107/5680489231_1d621fc914.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5107/5680489231_1d621fc914.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5680489231/ ]F36 bounced off ceiling[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

This isn't the best example tbh as where we were everything's white, so the reflected flash light is quite harsh. If you are in a warmly lit room the difference is much better as the reflected light takes on the hues of the surroundings.

Another useful thing on separate flash units is the ability to turn the amount of flash up or down smoothly. So if the natural light is nice but not quite enough, you can just augment it a little bit to get a fast enough shutter speed to work with and still preserve some of the character of the natural light.

In fact, what am I saying? Flash units have TONS of great features that really really help get the light you want - especially if you ahve one (or more) that can be positioned away from the camera entirely. Basically, light is what you are working with on a technical level, and there is loads to learn about lighting. I think Ken Rockwell or some other photo blogger guy has loads of info on it, and says that lighting gear is far more important than the latest sharpest lens or gadget.

That's really, really useful. Thanks for taking the time to do that, it's really appreciated.

When you're bouncing off the walls (so to speak), is that off-camera or on a twisty mount?

Next question of course is "find me an affordable flash"... (-:

I dunno anything about Canons 🙂

They can be pricey, but the sort of prices that people don't think twice about spending on a lens. I paid £100 for mine from eBay as new which should've been £200*. Didn't realise it wasn't the remotely triggerable version tho, which was a bit of a bummer. But being honest, I don't really have a use for that right now. It msotly gets used for taking pics of the family at gatherings. Everyone compliments me on my photos of stuff like this, but all I do is a) think about where to point my flash and b) not walk up to people, shove a camera in their face and go 'SAY CHEESE!'

* during the course of researching this post I found the remotely capable version for only £163.. gaahh!!!

EDIT - Canon Speedlite 320EX sounds good. Off-camera capability but it doesn't zoom in much. The better ones can focus the beam within a certain range so you can get a lot more range when zoomed in. £200 new tho.

Yeah, see, I'm looking at things like [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Electronic-Speedlight-Speedlite-flashgun-Olympus/dp/B0031YBKA6/ ]this[/url], 40 quid rather than 200. (-:

A quick Google would suggest that the Canon 430EX II might be a worthy purchase.

TBH though, there's lots of talk and discussion on there about TTL and wireless remotes and slave modes and various other things that I really don't have a scooby about, so I think I'm going to step away from the flash guns till I've done a bit more reading. £200 is out of the realms of impulse buying.

FWIW, i've gone through a lot of kit (family business is photography), but now use 2 cameras and three lenses and that is it. So, my advice, bugger the rest and get 2 really good and fast lenses and decent tripod. calumet basic tripods are good and sturdy and great value, none of this 'velbon' Boots crap.

(unless your life depends on it, and you shoot in total darkness so the camera can't focus without iR beam assist, pretty much all flash photography looks hideous... IMHO, and no offence intended to molgrips excellent analysis and beautiful daughter)

get a really fast good lens and it will last you a lifetime. Seriously. You're going down the right route with a good prime, I suggest a 35L f1.4. Amazing lens. Truly stunning. The problem with L kit is once you use a bit of it, everything else is a bit disappointing. Nt much your going to miss at 3200 iso and f1.4. And at the shorter end, a zoom doesn't make sense (to me). Use your feet!

Add something like the 70-200f2.8 L. IS or not is your call, might as well go with. That covers your long end and even some good portrait stuff. I think the sigma stuff at this FL is pretty good IIRC.

Filter of questionable value unless you really need UV or polarised, and does seem odd to stick a cheap piece of glass in front of good lens glass (and it also slows the lens down).

Bit pricey, but buy now and you will never have to get rid of them and upgrade your body around it. I bet you save money over the next 3 years

All of course IMHO, and of course your,s, and other's, mileage may vary!

Kev

Actually, that might have been rash, half the fun is trying out different styles of photography and using the kit that suits your style.

Would still recommend you budget for one belter of a lens ad a starter however.

I'm off for a lie down, this forum advice stuff is stressful!

Kev

big scott nanny talks sense and I think I am about there myself on the lens front.
Though the Nikon Creative lighting system is a joy. I have a SB600 and SB800 and it makes my ageing D80 work miracles. (D7000 or D90 successor on shopping list for next 12 months).

want to take portraits indoors with no flash? Sit your subject by the window, use white card to bounce natural light & open your lens up fast.

What's your typical subject? I can help with guerilla photography.

I did a photoshoot in Leeds on Saturday entirely with my F1.8 50mm lens. It was the only thing that could cope with the stage lighting. I want fast glass and a more sensitive camera. The cameras of the last couple of years have come on massively with high (usable!) ISO. Both Nikon and Canon and probably others are really developing this.
(My other lens is the 18-200 VR Nikon... a great no-brain lens).

pretty much all flash photography looks hideous

I wouldn't say hideous, but yes I agree that if you can get away without it then do. That candid shot someone posted up at a wedding party the other day was unreal.

However sometimes, needs must. I don't have a very fast lens, nor do I have a camera with good high ISO. I'm happy with my flash pics too 🙂

I do however dispute the suggestion by very keen amateurs and pros that you need to spend a load of cash on some expensive lenses. You don't. You can take great pictures and have great fun with a kit lens, and for a beginner this is the best place to start imo. It'd be like recommending a Yeti ASR Carbon to someone who's never ridden a bike before. Saying you 'need' a fast prime or whatever is like saying you 'need' 5" of travel. Very very handy in some or many situations, but 'need'? Really? And as for money, you people talk as if it grows on trees! Saying 'budget for it' is no use if you don't actually have the cash in the first place 🙂

In all fairness if/when I've got more money I could see myself buying the Sigma f1.4 30mm but it's what, £400? I'd rather get other stuff first. Like the 25mm pancake f2.8. Not that fast, not that sharp but the portability interests me.

Sit your subject by the window

Yep.. unless you are looking for candid shots.. 🙂

Completly agree with big_scot. Keep it simple. All to easy to get caught up in the what gear for what situation drama. And concentrate on natural light initially. Learning the art of photography is about learning about light, not equipment. It doesn't have to be expensive, your 50mm 1.8 out resolves my f1.2 which cost 12 times as much.

Decide what u want to photograph, then select the appropriate lens for the subject. Given the sensor size in this case would be 17 / 20 mm landscapes, 35mm do everything, 50mm portraits and 135 sports etc.

Most focal lengths have a variety of apertures buy the brightest u can afford.

That's what I am saying innit. But if you decide to buy primes that gets really expensive when you have one for each job.

I've gone for a cheap camera that was a half price special (I paid £320 for an Oly E600), then I'm getting a lens to cover each base. So the standard kit, long zoom, macro and wide angle. I'm not going to let myself get drawn into blowing tons of cash.

You shooting in JPEG or RAW?

l'ordinateur...

some other requirements may pop up if you are needing to do post-processing... like a monitor with an IPS panel and possibly some software

All good stuff, keep it coming.

I take Kev's point, but it assumes a cash flow that I simply don't have, and TBH I wouldn't appreciate the difference anyway. Molgrips' ASR analogy pretty much nails it I think. I'd rather drop (say) 300 notes on a couple of lenses that'll do me for a couple of years, then upgrade to an L-series or some such once I've worked out what I actually want and fleabay the surplus.

Someone asked what my typical subject is; I've had the camera for a fortnight, my typical subject is 'everything' currently. If I subsequently decide that what I really like doing is macro photography, or landscapes, or animals, or portraits, or sports, or porn(*), then I can spend more money on the right lens rather than an expensive white elephant. Or, decide that it's not really for me.

TBH, I just want to take good photos, I'm not convinced that I'll ever be one of those people who spend hours waiting for the 'perfect' shot, I don't have the patience.

(* - which potentially encompasses the other five subjects)

Cougar, welcome to the budget side of the tracks 🙂

As far as I can see you get two things for indecent amounts of wedge. One is image quality, but you have to ask yourself if your pictures need that much sharpness. The other is light gathering capability which is very useful.

Take Oly lenses as an example. I've got the 70-300mm f4.0-5.6 which can be had for around £400. There is a 90-250mm zoom available at a lovely f2.8, but it costs FOUR GRAND. For that you get two extra stops at full zoom. That's all. Well, in light terms at least - the image quality is lovely I'm sure 🙂

You shooting in JPEG or RAW?

Right now, JPG. I can't learn everything at once, so I'm largely ignoring post-processing apart from basic stuff like cropping for now.

Molgrips > quite.

If I were making a career out of it, then it's an investment. Right now, it's somewhere between a hobby and a folly, and I still have a sharp pain in my wallet from buying the camera.

I know that the "pro" advice is to shoot in RAW with an L-series lens in full manual mode, using three synchronised flash guns with diffusers and silver and gold striped parabolic reflectors, then post-producing using Lightroom and Photoshop on a temperature-calibrated 24" Mac display a measured distance from my eyes which have had laser surgery for optimum accuracy. I'm not a pro, and have neither the delusions that I'm ever going to be that good nor any desire to be so.

🙂

Shooting in raw is cheap enough though and fun when you get the hang of everything else.

Seriously, I spend about 6 months reading bits of my manual, trying it out, re-reading it, absorbing it and fiddling with it. If I'd have been using film I'd have hundreds of spent rolls with shots of my TV and objects in my living room with slightly different settings.

Oh - two other things for your shopping list. Firstly, Photoshop Elements which is pretty cheap, £70 ish, and then for later you can get DXO Optics which is similarly reasonable. Those two things will will improve your pictures and extend the creative process (and hence fun) far more than anything else for that kind of money I reckon.

Primes expensive ? 50mm 1.8 £90, 20mm f2.8 £300, 35mm f2.0 £200, 85mm f1.8 £250 and that's new, they are half that on ebay. All some of the highest lp resolution results.

So u end up with a full range at a minimum of f2.8 for less than the equivalent 24-70 f2.8 ?

What you get for the extra £££ is robustness, and weather sealing, as covered the £90 50mm f1.8 is as sharp as my £1200 f1.2, but I rely on my lens for a living so have to invest accordingly.

An XX mm f3.5-5.6 kit zoom is going to prevent alot of natural light, candid photography.

can always shoot in JPEG+RAW mode if the camera supports it.. which it probably does

backup all the images some where... then one day if you get a sudden urge to fiddle with the RAW images you can...

I know that the "pro" advice is to shoot in RAW with an L-series lens in full manual mode, using three synchronised flash guns with diffusers and silver and gold striped parabolic reflectors, then post-producing using Lightroom and Photoshop on a temperature-calibrated 24" Mac display a measured distance from my eyes which have had laser surgery for optimum accuracy. I'm not a pro, and have neither the delusions that I'm ever going to be that good nor any desire to be so.

Your laughing now, but.......

😆

Kev

You just listed £840 worth of stuff there. Ranges you could cover with two or even one cheap lens.

To some that IS expensive, sorry. You are not looking at it from the same point of view as me.

An XX mm f3.5-5.6 kit zoom is going to prevent alot of natural light, candid photography

Some, yes. A 2.0 TDI Passat isn't going to pull any chicks on the Monacco beach front either, but them's the breaks! 🙂

This is a great thread. Really good advice. RAW, Elements, back ups. But then....

What you get for the extra £££ is robustness, and weather sealing, as covered the £90 50mm f1.8 is as sharp as my £1200 f1.2, but I rely on my lens for a living so have to invest accordingly

Will nobody mention the bokeh?
😉

Yup, the 1.4 is just about as good (both have 8 blades), and focus's faster 🙂 and is 1/5th the cost

Shooting in raw is cheap enough though and fun when you get the hang of everything else.
...
can always shoot in JPEG+RAW mode if the camera supports it.. which it probably does

Problem there is storage. RAW+JPG takes five times the space of JPG alone, which was a particular issue last week when I only had the 512Mb SD from my old IXUS to shoot on.

Firstly, Photoshop Elements which is pretty cheap, £70 ish, and then for later you can get DXO Optics which is similarly reasonable

Never heard of DXO, I'll Google it. My understanding was that the software to have was Lightroom and Elements; Elements coming in as 'Photoshop Lite' and Lightroom grown out of being a photo manager. I could be wrong, but I can't see me ever using Elements; I'm simply not arty. My post-production so far has been limited to cropping for composition, and hitting the 'I'm feeling lucky' button in Picasa. I guess that if I master Picasa beyond pressing 'auto' then Lightroom might be worth a punt at some point.

Actually, DXO Optics looks quite funky.

Your laughing now, but.......

Yes yes, famous last words and all that. It'll be interesting to revisit this thread next summer and laugh at what a fool I was back then. Now. Whatever. (-:

Hi Cougar.

I've had a 450D for a couple of years now. I'd been an enthusiastic amateur sticking to 35mm for 20ish years and resisted the transition to DSLR for financial reasons - since I've had the 450D, though, I've wondered why I waited so long! MrsG bought me the 50mm prime linked in your OP at Christmas. It's an excellent lens; thoroughly recommended.

Ref the cheap tripod you linked, I have a similarly cheap tripod that you can have. I bought it years ago (thinking I [i]should[/i] have one) and have used it only a handful of times. Where are you located?

Aw, gosh. That'd be ace, thankyou.

I'm in East Lancs, which is probably nowhere near you...!

I've had designs on a nice zoom but, after borrowing a couple of lenses from the lass I bought the camera off, I [i]really [/i]want the 50mm prime, it's fabulous.

For the money, it's worth a punt.

Where in East Lancs? (town will do 🙂 ). I work in the Lakes during the week and commute back to the East Mids at the weekend - via M61/60/62. I could drop it off en-route.

EDIT: logging off now, my e-mail is in my profile 8)

(replied via email)

DXO looks important for me cos I have noisy pictures. However it only recognises the E620 not the E600 even though the files are the same. I tried changing the EXIF and it didn't work, so some more hacking is required when I have time.

Afaik Lightroom is for batch processing large numbers of images. Not really an issue for me. Plus it's expensive. PS Elements is not just about cutting your pictures up - it fixes levels and colours, it's a RAW editor, you can remove crap from the background etc. Just bear it in mind, and once you get a few pictures where you think 'oh this would be ace if I could just do X or Y' then you can consider it.

One of my fave candid snaps was taken many years ago on my first 2mp camera that had a 128mb smartmedia card or something, so I had to really compress the images to be able to take many. I ended up with this lovely shot with some really jarring JPEG blocks around a silhouetted figure. Even as a noob it was easy to smooth them out, picture massively improved.

As for picture organisers, you're swamped really. I've been using the Elements 8 one just because it was there. Not that great but it does. I understand the Elements 9 one is better.

I use DXO. It is very good. Unfortunately I use two systems, one of them being an Olympus e-p2 which isn't supported (but judging by the routemap they have e-p1, e-pl1 and e-pl2 in the pipeline so hopefully e-p2 is coming). Hopefully they'll explicitly support my lenses too as m4/3 lenses are optically crap and need software correction!

The user interface approach is a little different to most but once you get used to it you wonder what the problem was. It is very slow to process but the workflow pushes you to make all your changes then process the lot in batch at the end (which for me is often a couple of hours). Not a problem - go eat or sleep.

I always use DXO to remove vignetting and lens distortion and betterise my pics, though I've noticed it tends to make skies less blue 🙁

Lightroom has replaced the majority of our Photoshop / Phase one RAW workflow including Temperature balance, Curves, Levels and Exposure correction and even cropping. Its heading more down the line as a single point of use bar actual retouching. Prices start from £60 for Student / Teacher through to £200 for the un-subsidised versions. Worth downloading the 30 day trial to see if the investment is justified. Only gripe about Adobe is the constant requirement to upgrade and lack of support for previous versions.

The library function also goes along way to keeping the inevitable thousands of images in some semblance of order.

Another workaround for unsupported raw formats is to use an intermediary software to convert to DNG. Adobe offer "Digital Negative" which is a free software works for the majority of industry RAW formats, and is constantly updated. Phase one software which you can sometimes pick up as a free download will also do similar.

Also, if you are a mac user, have a look at the App store as they were offering Aperture for £40 which was a huge saving over the initial release cost.

I always use DXO to remove vignetting and lens distortion and betterise my pics, though I've noticed it tends to make skies less blue

MM - you are a pro though 🙂

Oh btw I tried converting my RAWs to DNG but DXO wouldn't open them either. Seems its DNG support is limited to saving them..?

Seems you can request support (though how much difference it'll make, who knows).

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/support/modules/availability/pb_availability

Oh btw I tried converting my RAWs to DNG but DXO wouldn't open them either

it IS supposed to be a raw processor, and goodness knows what liberties Adobe may take in writing a DNG...

They shouldn't be taking any. The point of DNG is simply a common RAW standard, isn't it?

The point of DNG is simply a common RAW standard, isn't it?

as invented by Adobe...

Yes. Adobe who are not a camera manufacturer.

They have good form in this respect - making industry standards.

Re UV/Skylight filter for "protecting the lens".

Big waste of money IMO. It just adds an extra layer of glass on top of all your pictures, degrading the picture quality for no very good reason. If you use your lens hood you will protect the lens from most sources of damage and avoid reducing your image quality.

I read a waffly article yesterday that said much the same thing. In summary; it was good advice ten years ago. These days lenses are made of pretty strong stuff, filters can introduce ghosting, and a small blemish on the lens will be unnoticeable anyway (the example cited here was to put a bit of Post-it the size of a pea on the lens and then look through it).

I did a quick test last time this came up (I use filters on some of my lenses):

Full images:
[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

100% crops:
[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

The only way you can see the difference with a decent filter is to print poster size and view from 6".

Apologies in advance if this is incorrect as I'm simply a newbie with Google, but,

I don't believe those shots would demonstrate the problem. The issue comes with shots with hot-spots of bright light, you can get a diametrically opposite ghost 'flare' effect (eg, if you have a street lamp at 11 o'clock in the image, you'll see a flare at 5 o'clock equidistant from the centre).

Ah, here, this is the article I'm referring to (with example pictures).

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml

There's a couple of possible problems. One is degradation because there's an extra layer of glass. The other is extra layer causing flare.

The above image gives you an idea of the size of the first problem.

As far as flare goes a decent filter will be a similar order of magnitude. I don't have any back-to-back tests but I don't have flare as a problem when I use filters.

Without a doubt filters degrade image quality but unless you print poster size and the look for problems you won't find any.* Even then other factors are far more likely to be a problem.

Don't forget that you'll get flare without a filter too. Everything is relative (no filter on this one):

[img] [/img]

*with good filter, the vast majority of the time

Without a doubt filters degrade image quality but unless you print poster size and the look for problems you won't find any.

Well quite. You can take things too far, the audiophile world is similar.

You can take things too far, the audiophile world is similar

But the point is that an audiophile spends cash for a (perceived) better sound, whereas here the photographer spends cash for a (perceived) degraded image.

The OP was short of money - so I suggest that using resources on buying a filter is not a good idea.

Not quite where I was going.

There's an argument in the audio world that every piece of equipment, every circuit, every process that the signal goes through, degrades the sound. It's probably true, but the question is, does it degrade it perceptibly? (and how about cumulatively?)

Same thing. You're shooting through an extra pane of glass. Does it degrade the image? Almost certainly, yes, but is that of any consequence whatsoever?

The OP was short of money - so I suggest that using resources on buying a filter is not a good idea.

Consequence to whom? Probably not to the majority of people. But to restate my point:

Filters:
negative - cost a lot of money for a good one, degrade image (with caveat as above)
positive - provide marginal protection to something that probably doesn't need protecting

I'm not disagreeing.

I'm also, oddly, well versed as to where the OP was coming from. (-:

A handy hint I thought about today: consider a wrist strap instead of the lanyard you get with your camera. I tend to walk around with my camera in a shoulder case or small bag (like the one I am sending you). Getting the camera out and untangling the strap and then retangling it was a bit of a pain, but also walking around with the camera around my neck was annoying me since I then had two thigns around my neck. So I realised that a wrist strap would be much more convenient and still protect my camera against being dropped. €8 later and my 'workflow' is significantly improved, faffage is reduced.

Plus (this relates to the previous topic) when my camera is not around my neck it doesn't swing forward and hit things when I bend over, which was a major risk of smacking the lens.

Re flare once taking pics indoors I noticed horrible ghosting and flare. Holy crap my lens is rubbish I thought, until I took off the filter.

I had another great tip but I've forgotten it 🙁

I've never used a neck strap before, and I am finding it horribly, uh, horrible. Room for improvement certainly. I can't seem to work out which part of of my torso it should be bouncing around uncomfortably against.

Yeah with mine I put one arm through it and put on my hip, but then it's not long enough to comfortably swing round the front to use. Definitely try a wrist strap, big improvement for me.

Now what else was I gonna say? Dammit.

These days lenses are made of pretty strong stuff, filters can introduce ghosting, and a small blemish on the lens will be unnoticeable anyway (the example cited here was to put a bit of Post-it the size of a pea on the lens and then look through it).

So a pea-sized piece of paper is unnoticeable, but a clear filter will degrade the image?

Just bought one of these for about a tenner posted, looks good for the money

[url= http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130509584481 ]QuickStrap[/url]

reviewed here

(preview doesn't seem to be working)

So a pea-sized piece of paper is unnoticeable, but a clear filter will degrade the image?

Good point. I'm going to replace the mirror in my shaving kit with a Post-it, just as effective and takes up far less room.

[url= http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html ]This[/url] is quite interesting (crap/scratches on lens experiment).

There's one where they show some pictures. One looking basically fine, another with a few blemishes, then they show you the lens which has the front element completely smashed.

That's the one.

No, it's not - it was a different one. I found that when trying to search for the original article 🙂