
Don’t buy an SLR if you’ll only use the kit lens - shawndumas
http://www.marco.org/2013/05/07/your-kit-lens-sucks
======
georgemcbay
Disagree. I started with the exact Canon 18-55 II he linked to as an example
of a kit lens. I've since upgraded to a lot of different lenses including some
primes and the 17-55 f2.8 and while the 17-55 certainly gives me better photos
than the 18-55 did (which is why I spent the ~$1000 on it), the photos I took
with the 18-55 were clearly superior in image quality to any cellphone or P&S
camera photos I've seen to date.

IME the photos on that review page he posted for that kit lens are not
actually indicative of the quality of that lens.

If you take his argument a few steps further, you shouldn't buy a DSLR with a
crop sensor, because you aren't getting the highest quality, and then you
shouldn't buy a DSLR that is full frame because medium format is better, and
so on... Quality (vs price vs convenience) is a range and crop-sensor DSLRs
with modern kit lenses do have a very solid spot on that range.

In any case, most people probably shouldn't buy DSLRs but not because they
will only use the kit lens but because DSLRs aren't pocketable and most people
just aren't going to lug around a non-pocketable camera, even if they think
they are (this applies even to the newer small mirrorless interchangeable lens
cameras which are certainly smaller than DSLRs but still a bit too big to be
pocketable in most situations).

~~~
bprater
The Canon 18-55 is actually rated pretty highly at Amazon:
[http://www.amazon.com/Canon-
EF-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-II/dp/B000V...](http://www.amazon.com/Canon-
EF-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-II/dp/B000V5K3FG)

I own a video production company where we exclusive use DSLRs, and the 18-55
is a great beginner's lens. Here's the issue with prime lenses, like the 40mm
pancake: beginners have little concept of composition and framing. A prime
forces you to move your body into position to get a shot. A zoom allow you to
fiddle and tweak without moving. When you are getting started, you need to be
taking lots of shots. When you improve, you automatically know where to put
your feet to get a good shot, and using fast primes is just a ton of fun.

Here's a recent fashion video I shot with the most inexpensive gear I have in
my kit, namely a Canon T2i ($350 on Craigs), a 50mm/f1.8 lens ($80 on Craigs)
and a cheap $20 monopod: <https://vimeo.com/59777345> . Good results come from
experience and practice, not expensive gear.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
> Here's the issue with prime lenses, like the 40mm pancake: beginners have
> little concept of composition and framing.

This is exactly why I think beginners should use prime lenses.

------
binaryorganic
I disagree completely. I don't shoot professionally, and I've got a Nikon D40
with the lens it came with (body & lens cost less than $500 new). The photos I
get from it are far far better than every point and shoot or smartphone camera
I've ever owned.

I get needing better equipment if you're a pro photographer, or even if you're
just somebody like Marco with disposable income, but the suggestion that you
need to dump $1k+ into a setup to make owning an SLR worth it is absurd.

~~~
pkulak
You're right. But I still think you would get better shots if you bought the
camera with body only and used the difference to pick up a good prime lens
instead.

~~~
Moulde
Of course your pictures would be sharper, but a stock say canon lens kit
really is good and good enough for most, especially the far majority of people
thinking they need a better lens for them to take better pictures.

And the difference in price between a body and a body with the standard lens
kit is usually quite small.

I completely disagree with that article.

~~~
pkulak
Sharper, I suppose, but I consider being stuck at 4.0 the real handicap. And
those kit lenses usually give you 4.0 as a _best_ case; 5.6 if you zoom in at
all.

~~~
dpark
And yet Canon's 70-200 f/4 IS is very highly regarded, as is their 100-400
f/4.5-5.6 IS.

~~~
pkulak
Those are 200mm+ telephotos. At that distance F4 makes bokeh like you'd see in
a 1.8 prime. F5.6 on a 50mm doesn't let you separate the subject from the
background at all, or get any light. If you are 100 meters away from
something, you're likely outside with plenty of light (or shooting sports, but
those guys shoot with 2.8 zooms like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS).

~~~
dpark
It's hardly fair to call the 70-200 a "200mm+ telephoto". No one buys it just
for 200mm or they'd buy a prime. The 70mm end is not far from the long end of
an 18-55 (but it is a stop faster).

I'll grant you that you won't get extremely thin depth of field with a kit
18-55, but I don't fully agree that you can't get background separation.
Distance to the lens is also a major factor there. Get close at 55mm/5.6. But
more importantly, thin depth of field does not make a mediocre picture good.
In some photos it can certainly help (in others it can be detrimental), but
it's only one aspect. As for light, get a flash. Even an f/1.4 still won't let
in light that doesn't exist.

------
photoGrant
What complete drab. The photographer dictates the quality of the image, not
the negligible image optics of a kit lens vs. a pancake 40mm.

Studying composition theory, understanding light and intelligently working
with post production will get you stellar images irrespective of the lens you
use;

[http://500px.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=18-55mm&typ...](http://500px.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=18-55mm&type=photos_tags&page=1&order=votes&license_type=-1)

edit: Actually, seeing his article peppered with referral links just pulls the
truth of this article to the forefront. Do not take this advice of spending
more money on 'higher end' equipment thinking it'll produce something better.

~~~
wklauss
You can also get amazing images with a point-and-shoot too (search on FLickr
for images with an RX100, for example).

Again, he is not recommending you to buy an expensive lens. He's just saying
you can find great point-and-shoot cameras or mirrorless with good optics for
far less money or get better lenses if you jump to a body+custom lens
scenario.

He's just advising not to end up in the middle, which I don't think it's a
terrible advice. After using kit lenses for a while I'm giving the same advice
now most of the time.

~~~
photoGrant
But what is wrong with going the SLR route? The point of those systems are the
modularity. What if you want, in future, to expand your lens setup? Or keep
your lenses and upgrade your body? Or you want a body without an AA filter? Or
infrared filter? Or that shoots great video?

The argument is flawed.

------
wting
I second shot weddings and freelanced events, and have spent more on camera
gear than my car.

Marco's advice is terrible and akin to, "Don't learn programming if you'll
only use one language."

It's a chicken or egg first problem. People buying their first DSLR always ask
which camera to buy, but it's hard to answer since they don't have established
preferences from exploring the hobby. There are no early indicators whether a
person will ever need to upgrade from a kit lens.

Marco 40mm pancake lens suggestion is projecting his own preferences onto
readers. What if the person wants to shoot headshots, sports, landscape, low
light, or events? What use is a 40mm pancake then?

He may be famous for Instapaper, but his unqualified gear snobbery doesn't
belong on Hacker News.

------
danielna
I enjoy photography but not enough (at the moment and foreseeable future) to
sink a lot of time/money into it. I don't even consider it a "hobby" as much
as I just like to carry a camera around with me when I know I'm going
somewhere interesting.

Marco mentions them towards the end of the post but I absolutely love my
mirrorless, micro 4/3s camera (Panasonic GF-1). [1] It's small/light enough
that it's not a burden to carry (form factor is somewhere between a point and
shoot and dSLR) and the picture quality, at least to a novice like myself, is
excellent. I'm a big believer in the idea that "the best camera to own is the
one you have in your hand" and I really wouldn't want to lug around anything
bulkier/heavier, despite the added functionality.

[1] <http://craigmod.com/journal/gf1-fieldtest/> \- epic craigmod post that
sold me on my camera, and has by his own admission given him a good chunk of
money/exposure.

------
ebbv
Equipment snobs afflict every hobby. Photography, music, computing, sports.

They're always annoying and always wrong.

~~~
kybernetyk
We call them 'dentist photographers' in German photo forums. These guys get
always the most expensive stuff and all they do is taking test pictures of
screws and newspapers to determine if the optics are flawless. Then they put
their expensive Leica away and go golfing.

~~~
potatolicious
It works out great for everyone else though. If you look at used Leica M9s on
the market (as I'm doing these days...) a great many of them have only
collected ~500 shutter clicks in the years they've been "in service".

Whenever I see a great camera sitting around unused it makes me ache :(

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Have they fixed the chromatic aberration issues with it yet? I couldn't
imagine paying $6000+ for a body anyway, especially one with such fringing
issues. If you haven't considered it, you might want to check out the X100S.
Check out Zack Arias' review. He specifically discusses the camera in the
context of Leica: [http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-
gadgets/fuji-x10...](http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-
gadgets/fuji-x100s-review-a-camera-walks-into-a-bar/)

~~~
potatolicious
I'm not aware of any unusual CA issues with the M9. Are you talking about the
UV issues with the M8? Those were fixed for the M9, but unfortunately never
fully fixed with the M8's...

CA is largely an artifact of the lens, not the sensor, no?

In any case, you can pick up a barely used (makes me weep with joy and sadness
at the same time) M9 for about $3500 these days... It's the only reason why
I'm even considering it. $7K for a body is insanity.

I did manage to get to play with a preproduction X100S by a stroke of luck. I
like it, but it's not really the shooting workflow I'm looking for. I have the
OM-D for that.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
M9: <http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/33903254>.

> shooting workflow

Can you elaborate? I'm curious about this. thanks!

p.s. this is beautiful:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/potatolicious/5807542886/in/set...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/potatolicious/5807542886/in/set-72157632522364025/)

------
evilduck
Oh please.

I guarantee you that if you give 100 random people a SLR stuck in "Full Auto
dummy mode" with the stock zoom lens and an iPhone 5 and make them to go take
pictures one for one with each camera for an afternoon, the SLR photos will
turn out dramatically better for them.

The SLR is the single easiest way to throw money at the "I want better
pictures" problem and see results. Plus, even the cheapest ones have all the
buttons and toggles to mess with if you do decide to learn more. And you can
borrow lenses from friends.

------
poutine
I've got a Panasonic Micro 4/3 camera for this very reason. As an amateur
wanting better quality photos than an iPhone I find it has much of the quality
of a DSLR in a fraction of the size and cost and gives you that arty blurry
background depth of field effect.

Camera: [http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-GX1-Compact-System-
Camer...](http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-GX1-Compact-System-
Camera/dp/B00604YTFM/ref=zg_bs_3109924011_10)

Lens: [http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-14mm-2-5-Aspherical-
Intercha...](http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-14mm-2-5-Aspherical-
Interchangeable/dp/B0043VE29C/ref=pd_sim_p_9)

~~~
r00fus
I find that the biggest factor in getting great pictures is my bounce-able
external flash on my 7D (and 300D before it) - and the only reason I haven't
stepped down to a micro 4/3 already.

How do you solve the lighting problem?

~~~
MichaelGG
Lighting changes everything. Even turning off the flash and living with noise
and blur often results in a better picture.

After that, the biggest noticeable difference is (perhaps overly used) DoF and
lovely bokeh to make subjects pop. That's something that really elevates some
snapshots to being great photos.

~~~
r00fus
Try all this with fast moving subjects - ie, kids.

They don't stay still and talk so you need something that does high ISO or
good lighting.

------
da_n
Sound advice but maybe a bit too discouraging. It is true a lot of people seem
to think it is all about the body not the glass, a classic mistake, but to say
avoid the kit lens at all costs is perhaps a bit too far. I have a 350D,
pretty old-fashioned for digital but works fine for someone like me who is not
a pro. The kit lens it came with is garbage, however I did use it solely for
about a year as I couldn't justify buying a lens and I still got some great
shots. I recently bought a 50mm 1.8, very cheap, and now I only use the kit
lens for wide shots (until I can afford a wide prime). I love the 50mm 1.8,
it's a massive upgrade, but it is also very cropped (on an APS-C sensor) and
the bokeh is noticeably harsh, but being worlds apart in terms of sharpness
and speed over the kit lens is a great advantage. Using the kit lens does
often produce soft images with blurred distorted edges full of chromatic
aberration, enough to make me cry sometimes when I seeing a decent composition
has been tainted by the low quality glass. But it is not the end of the world,
the composition was still OK, the idea was still good, it was still
interesting (to me at least). As soon as I can justify buying a decent wide
lens I will, but I would never discourage someone from just going out and
taking pictures if they only had the kit lens.

------
jfb
Better advice: don't be an equipment queen. Many kit lenses these days are
very good.

I have the 50/1.4 on my Nikon D80, a fabulous lens, and I prefer using a
prime, but it's not the right lens for every situation.

------
pkulak
Even cheaper than that pancake lens is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II. And it's
much faster. That's my go to lens.

~~~
r00fus
I totally agree and the nifty-fifty's pricing is unbeatable. However, I find
the DoF to be way too shallow for all but portraits, unless I tweak/fix the
aperture settings (and fix them so they don't change).

If I'm going to be doing f/2.8 or f/4 anyway, I'm happier with the pancake
lens - esp. with my APS-C cropped factor, and effective 64mm is much more
manageable than a 80mm. And it's just that bit lighter.

I'm a big believer in the foot-based zoom approach, and really prefer primes
to zooms.

------
donflamenco
Wrong. The kit lens is perfectly able to amazing photos.

This link contains nothing but photos taken with the Canon 18-55mm IS.

<http://flickriver.com/lenses/canon/canonefs1855mmf3556is/> (just keep
scrolling.)

There are a lot of amazing photographers out there.

In fact the newest Canon kits lens (18-55 IS STM) is extremely sharp. See:

<http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/831-canon_1855_3556stmis>

------
potatolicious
The kit lens is only inferior if your intended photographic subjects are test
charts.

------
Zimahl
I am someone who takes pictures who is a friend to someone who takes photos.
There is a fair amount of distinction between those two sections of the
spectrum.

I bought a Nikon D50 years ago which only had a kit lens for a trip to Hawaii.
My friend already owned that camera and so fortunately he was able to run
through the settings and help fix anything that wasn't ideal (I think by
default it was set to medium quality JPGs). At the time there weren't many
point-and-shoot cameras that had anywhere near the quality. Second, the
shutter speeds on point-and-shoot cameras were, and still tend to be, awful.
Third, a ton go into a digital zoom long after their optical is used up which
is worthless for high-end images. Fourth, the settings can be controlled
manually if need be to get everything _just right_. Finally, let's be honest,
SLRs look cool! You look bad ass carrying it around, who cares if you leave it
on AUTO the whole time?

SLRs can give you a lot more control than point-and-shoots that even just a
novice can utilize. I can't imagine a kit lens that is worse than an equally
expensive point-and-shoot.

------
2muchcoffeeman
Most of the comments here don't really argue against the article. Marco's not
saying don't ever use a kit lens. He's not saying don't buy an SLR either. He
argued that you shouldn't buy an SLR if all you will use is the kit lens.

He also gives a suggestion on his favorite lens and argues that you should not
skimp out if you get a zoom.

Marco is clearly an enthusiast. So I agree with the article. Enthusiasts
should optimize for price/performance. I think this excludes most SLRs.

I also agree with his recommendation of a micro 4/3 at the end. You might
argue that you can grow into an SLR and overall you may spend less money if
you get into photography seriously. But I have been involved in gear-centric
hobbies before. This is fallacious thinking.

The vast majority of people never get that serious, so overall, most people
have wasted money. The serious ones will continue to spend lots of money, and
that initial investment is negligible. Also you can sell cameras 2nd hand.

------
kghose
I consider myself an experienced amateur. I would give different advice. If
you are a documentary photographer (sending in pics with an article) the use a
compact or a micro 4/3rd camera. Those are easy to carry around and less
conspicuous and give good quality photos for print. An iphone is just fine for
web.

------
misframer
> Oh, and please don’t use your camera’s built-in flash. Ever.

Why not?

~~~
pkulak
Because direct flash makes things look terrible. If you want flash, you need
to buy a flash that can bounce off the ceiling or something similar. Besides,
modern SLRs have such great low-light performance that buying a fast prime
pretty much removes the need for a flash at all.

~~~
drivers99
"SLRs have such great low-light performance"

They do but you have to keep in mind that in low light it compensates by
opening the shutter longer, and you really need to stabilize your camera
(tripod is ideal) or it will come out blurry. If you're not using a tripod,
and just taking a snapshot, you can just hold still, put your arm against your
body and it should come out decent.

~~~
pkulak
"It" being the camera? If we're talking about an SLR, you are in control, not
"it". Stick that puppy in aperture priority, open it up to 1.8 and crank the
ISO. My entry SLR from 6 years ago takes great shots even at ISO 800. New ones
can probably quadruple that.

~~~
drivers99
"Stick that puppy in aperture priority, open it up to 1.8 and crank the ISO"

And then what? I'm not a camera expert so I'm not sure what this means. I know
how to do those things or can find it but not what it accomplishes.

~~~
statictype
By putting it in aperture priority mode, you can let the camera choose the
optimum shutter speed while guaranteeing that the aperture stays at what you
set (presumably the highest - f/1.8)

In order to make sure the shutter speed the camera selects for you isn't too
slow and causes blurriness, boost up your ISO to as high a value as acceptable
(acceptable is subjective here).

~~~
drivers99
Interesting! Thank you! I will try this out on my camera.

------
mrbill
Disagree. My first SLR (and still my only "really good" camera) is a well-used
original Canon Digital Rebel with 18-55 kit lens that I bought off a friend
for $100, then added some accessories and a 50mm lens. My entire setup cost
less than some people spend on lenses or bodies alone, and it's more than I'll
ever need.

Going from a P&S to a dSLR was like going from a car with an automatic
transmission to one with a stick shift. There's more I have to do myself, but
I've also got much more control over the process.

That said, my most famous picture (has won photo competitions, been used as a
magazine cover, and as background for lifetime award certificates) was a
"lucky shot" I got with a Canon S3-IS point-and-shoot.

It's not about the equipment.

------
msoad
People buy DSLRs because they have big sensors. But I suggest buying a compact
mirror-less camera like Sony NEX that have big sensor and small size. You can
get expensive lenses if you are interested too.

------
sha90
This article is, quite simply, false. DSLR cameras have much superior sensors
to consumer end cameras, including smart phones. The sensor makes an enormous
difference in the photo; much moreso than the lens. Heck, I would be a 5D Mk
III for the ISO improvements alone, forget the lenses. Unless you're doing
something special that requires (a) zoom or (b) wide angle, the kit lens will
do you just fine.

This guy is either a gearophile elitist or he's making referral money on those
"pancake" lenses and the others he is casually "recommending".

~~~
wklauss
There are plenty of compact cameras with APS-C CMOS sensors these days.

~~~
sha90
It's not the "class" of sensor that makes the difference, it's the specific
sensor itself (the multitude of Nikon and Canon DSLR models with significant
variance in quality should illustrate this). Also, APS-C isn't a specific
size, it's a classification that different manufacturers interpret
differently.

More importantly, though, I would say that "plenty" is a stretch. There might
be some with large enough sensors, but those models are still the exception,
not the rule, and most likely they will be at the top end of the price point
for a compact anyway... I mean, the Coolpix A is $1000+. You can get an entry
level DSLR or a pretty good used one for about that price. You're actually
paying _more_ for convenience than quality, at that point.

------
bluedino
Someone should start photography classes for $2500 or something, and you get a
DSLR (and maybe another lens) 'for free'.

Many people don't want to be a professional or even a hobbyist photographer,
but could really benefit from a couple classes of the basics.

I just want to take a picture of my dogs/kids, something I've cooked/eaten,
and of items to put on eBay or Craigslist. Using a phone or point and shoot
leaves a lot to be desired but a lot of that doesn't have anything to do with
the camera.

------
statictype
Regarding prime lenses, what he says is generally correct: They offer very
good quality for money and you can just move around to 'zoom'.

However, you have to consider the types of shots you take and the types of
spacing you have to move around. I have a 50mm prime with my Nikon and there
have been times when I just couldn't get back far enough to take the shot I
wanted.

------
geekam
It depends on what you are doing with it, that is, the kind of photography is
involved. For some, the "starter" period is longer than the others. For me, my
Nikon 7000's kit lense 18-105 works great for what I do with it, usually.

Also, SLR also provides a wide range of features and plethora of settings that
you can tweak and learn.

------
jcampbell1
I find the sample photo quite bad. There is an out of focus section above and
to the left of the central flower that my brain can't make sense of. I'm no
expert, but I'd pick a different photo. My guess is he could have controlled
the depth of field better with the stock lens and gotten a better result.

------
antman
A micro 4/3 is easy to carry and lenses are interchangeable and getting
cheaper. This is a successful everyday lens:
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B002IKLJVE/ref=mw_dp_sim_ps5?p...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B002IKLJVE/ref=mw_dp_sim_ps5?pi=SL500_SY125)

------
aaronbrethorst
I'm a relatively decent amateur photographer[1]. Currently I shoot with a
Canon 5D Mk II and an Olympus E-P2 M4/3s, and I have a Fuji X100S backordered
from B&H[2].

I have about $3500 invested in Canon glass (acquired over the course of six
years), and another couple grand in lighting equipment (Pocket Wizards,
Speedlites, stands, backdrops, etc.), again acquired over the course of six
years.

It makes me incredibly sad to see people using their new, shiny DSLRs as
oversized point-and-shoots[3], and I wish that everyone who went out and
bought a new consumer DSLR spent an extra 15% to take a one-day photography
workshop.

If you were to say to me, "Aaron, I want to buy a DSLR so I can take better
photos," I'd probably tell you to just buy a Micro 4/3s camera instead.
They're cheaper, lighter, offer pretty decent quality, and still have
interchangeable lenses. If you were serious about buying a DSLR, though, I'd
recommend buying last year's model (body only), and picking up a 40 or 50mm
prime lens, preferably the 50mm f/1.4 if you were going to go with Canon. The
amount of money you'll save over buying the new model is more than enough to
pick up a book or two and attend a workshop, and the skills you'll learn from
both will do far more for your photos than a couple more megapixels ever will.

I love prime lenses for a variety of reasons, but I think they're especially
great with new photographers. Reason being is that it forces you to think more
about composition than you'd have to with a zoom lens[4], which means that
you're going to develop better habits that will carry over when you do finally
get a telephoto lens. You're also going to get a much larger maximum aperture,
which means you'll be able to keep that built-in flash turned off a lot more
of the time.

edit: oh yeah, and _please turn off full auto mode_

[1] Here are a couple recent photo projects of mine, if you're interested:

\- 365 for 2013:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/sets/72157632426...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/sets/72157632426455084/)

\- Final project for a photo class I was taking:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/sets/72157632966...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/sets/72157632966444128/)

[2] I wanted something more capable for street photography than the E-P2, and
the X100S, by all accounts, sounds absolutely fantastic. Here are a pair of
reviews: [http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-
gadgets/fuji-x10...](http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-
gadgets/fuji-x100s-review-a-camera-walks-into-a-bar/) and
[http://strobist.blogspot.com/2013/03/in-depth-new-
fujifilm-x...](http://strobist.blogspot.com/2013/03/in-depth-new-
fujifilm-x100s.html)

[3] For example:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/scobleizer/8282247371/in/photos...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/scobleizer/8282247371/in/photostream).
This makes me especially sad because the total cost of the equipment he's
using here is about $4000. For a photo indistinguishable from a point and
shoot. Were I taking this, I would've shot it at f/4, and dropped the shutter
speed down to about 1/30s (rule of thumb is that you can shoot at the
reciprocal of your focal length and stay sharp). This would've radically
decreased the ISO setting and made the picture much more artistically
interesting. I also would've cropped out my leg, but let's not go down that
rabbit hole.

[4] As they say, ZOOM WITH YOUR FEET!

~~~
Turing_Machine
One of my favorite images is of a bald eagle perched on top of one of those
very tall highway lighting standards.

"Zooming with your feet" isn't typically an option with wildlife, or with
sailboats out in the bay, fighter jets taking off, football players
approaching the goal line at the other end of the stadium, or about a billion
other subjects.

I sometimes wonder how many of the equipment fetishists actually take pictures
of real-world subjects.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
An 18-55mm isn't going to get you a shot of that bald eagle, either.

edit: I'm also not advocating never shooting with anything other than a prime
lens (although you can buy 200, 300, 400, 600, and 800mm primes). I just don't
think it makes sense for a beginner to pay thousands of dollars for equipment
that they have no idea how to use.

I think it makes far more sense for them to get up to speed on the basic use
of their equipment and principles of photography before they start investing
large sums of money.

~~~
Turing_Machine
I shot it with a 300mm zoom lens on a Canon 30D.

It came out fine. Quite usable for screen resolution.

If I'd had your preferred 50mm prime, it would have required so much cropping
that it would have been unusable.

------
baddox
I know nothing about photography, but I am very skeptical of what I call
"quality snobbery" in any hobby or discipline (audio equipment, music
instruments, automobiles, etc.). I just can't accept his dismissiveness
without some blind tests.

------
bjclark
Don't buy a Ferrari unless you're going to race it in Formula 1.

------
bjclark
Pretty glad Mapplethorpe only ever used prime lenses.

------
donniefitz2
Today's kit lenses are actually really good. In fact, a kit lens today blows
away a high-end lens from just a few years ago.

~~~
micahgoulart
That's not true. Lenses are actually very dependable over time, which is why
it's better to invest in good lenses rather than the body. Excellent lenses
from 10 years ago still perform just the same since only the body changes.
Only upgrades are Image Stabilization but IS is no match for top quality glass
and aperture.

------
niels_olson
Here follow the opinions of a former yearbook photographer, hobbyist, and
undergrad in physics. I have probably sold off or given away more camera
equipment than most people will ever own. Every lens and body came from a pawn
shop or eBay. Best photography lessons on the internet are probably John Lind
(ref 1) and Bob Atkins (refs 2-5, many of his older articles are on photo.net)

Best pro tip I could offer is that if you think you're serious and going
Nikon, spend the money to get a body with a built-in autofocus motor. That
makes a vast number of great older AF lenses available to you on the used
market, some of which are superior in very important respects to their current
counterparts. This could save you tons of money. For example, I just got a 300
mm f/4 AF-D off eBay for $320 (after shipping). List price new: well over
$1000. In the 1990s. The critical detail is that it's big enough that the lens
is what you mount on the tripod, not the camera. The mounting collar on the
new VR 300 is just a touch loose, but when you're moving this thing around to
get that shot of a yellow-breasted Pacific flycatcher, a few minutes of wiggle
is not acceptable.

I will also suggest not sweating the f-stops on lenses. "Fast" lenses were
defined in a time when pros were making tradeoffs between film resolution* and
speed at ASA values of 100-800. Any sensor you buy today will get to ASA 3200,
probably 6400, without trouble, and with higher sensor resolution* than those
lenses were ever sold for.

A great example: I'm very happy my first zoom was a Nikon 70-210 f/4, a budget
version of their famous 80-200 f/2.8. Now I carry half the weight and still
have way more speed (in terms of total available exposure value) than guys
with a 2.8 had 10 years ago.

You gain a bit of depth of field with the smaller objectives, (so your
background with the aperture wide open is more focused, which is not desirable
in some circumstances) but 95% of taking pictures outside a studio is being
there, and that's far more likely if your camera bag weighs less or has an
extra lens.

Also: lens quality. Friends, lens quality and geometry was perfected 100 years
ago. There was an advance in the 60s when they started depositing some salt
layers on the glass but otherwise, you'd be hard pressed to get a meaningfully
better lens today, optically, than you could in 1985.

(1) <http://johnlind.tripod.com/science/>

(2) <https://www.google.com/search?q=bob+atkins+site%3Aphoto.net>

(3) Very important: <http://photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/>

(4) Hard to find:
[http://photo.net/learn/optics/pixel_peep/pixel_peep_part1.ht...](http://photo.net/learn/optics/pixel_peep/pixel_peep_part1.html)

(5) Hard to put in context without (4)
[http://photo.net/learn/optics/pixel_peep/pixel_peep_part2.ht...](http://photo.net/learn/optics/pixel_peep/pixel_peep_part2.html)

* I use "film resolution" as I don't recall if there's a particular term that otherwise nicely describes the important point when trying to compare film grain and pixel density. There's yet another issue of quantum uncertainty when the wells start getting very small, but I leave that to Bob Atkins to explain (above).

------
moneypenny
Photographer/photojournalist here. What a panamax-sized-load of complete
nonsense. "Don't use the kit lens!" Says who? Some kit-obsessed "coffee
enthusiast". And I'm keen on indoor-outdoor breathing! Let's be buddies!

Marco Arment knows fuck-all about

(a) quality (b) photography (c) camera hardware (d) captioning photos

There isn't a sentence in that blog post that isn't either wrong or half-true.

Use the camera however you want. When you start finding that your tools can't
keep up with your imagination, improve them. Photography is about light, and
capturing it, first and foremost. See the light, see it change, make it
change, appreciate it, capture it, and stop reading trash from insecure
baldhead attention whores who take godawful photos like this:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcoarment/5196670116/in/photo...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcoarment/5196670116/in/photostream)

Sure, some people think sharp lines, high contrast and Schneider-Kreuznach-
like resolution == high quality. And it does, in context. If you want
sharpness, high contrast and resolution. You may also want to play an Ibanez
RG1570 in the same context. But to others, artistic quality is a more useful
way to describe things - and it can cheerfully describe all types of optics in
that useful way, a way that doesn't need to stick things on a scale of good to
bad. Marco appears to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and
caught me on full-flame-on mode - but he's also being narrow-minded and only
looking to one context, which doesn't help anybody make better pictures, it
just helps them make sharper and bigger pictures.

~~~
dkl
The common kit lens for the Canon 5D mk3 is the 28-105 L lens, which is a very
good lens (I have it). Yeah, I agree with you, Marco is being too general
here.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
The kit version of the 5D Mark 3 is also about 8x more expensive than what
Marco is discussing.

