philip_tam

<p>Thanks for all the replies and the well wishes!</p>

<p>Just to be clear, I do indeed already have the 35mm f/1.8. I think for tight crop portraits, I usually stop down to mid F2's to F3 anyhow, so I thought maybe the 60mm micro's f/2.8 is about right. I wouldn't be afraid to shoot with the 60mm wide open either.</p>

<p>The reason why I'm really on the fence about this is that I'm faced with two desires: the desire for a lens, longer than the 35, moderately fast for low-light/bokeh for baby portraits, and the future desire to have a 1:1 macro lens. If I get the 60mm, I think it'll be the perfect focal length, but f/2.8 may be not enough, and in the future, 60mm isn't the greatest working distance for macro. I'm just concerned that the 'easy' choice, I may regret later.</p>

<p>If I get the 50 1.4 AF-S, no concerns about speed/bokeh, concerns about close focusing (but as someone pointed out, I could get the little feet/hand pics with the kit lens perhaps), and I'd forgo macro pictures until I save up for the 105 micro.</p>

<p>I did take my 55-200 and set it at 60, 90, and 105 to get a feel for the focal length (the 90, with the Tamron macro in mind). It did feel like 60 was the most flexible working distance. However, I've also rented the 60 before, and what surprised me that it wasn't the most comfy working distance for macro, *even for flower pics*.</p>

<p>Arthur, yeah, I've definately been helping with the preparation. I'm going to assemble the crib this week and install a thermostat in the nursery to keep the baby toasty. Hopefully the wife will have less to complain about, but either way, I'm sure she's not going to like seeing the bills for any photo gear I buy!</p>

<p>Dan:</p>

<p>As I think someone already mentioned, hard edge is for straight lined horizons, soft edge can be used for when the horizon isn't straight, like with treelines, or jagged mountains.</p>

<p>I find screw on GND's hard to use because you can't shift the transition line up and down like you can with Slot/Square filters.</p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>I'd recommend getting a 0.6 hard GND, and a 0.9 soft GND. I have a 0.6 soft, and it seems very light to me (you're seldom at the very edge of the filter, where it's the darkest).</p>

<p>Looking at the pictures John, the guy uses a lot of long exposures with a NON-graduated ND filter as well to smooth out the waves in the water. For example:</p>

<p>Canon 17-40L @ 19 (very wide to get it all into the frame) <br /><strong>30-second exposure @F13 </strong><br /><strong>Hoya ndx-400 10-stop filter</strong> - Very dark for long exposures in daylight.<br />2 hours before sunset when the light is still on the cliff face.<br /><strong>LEE soft ND grad</strong> (100x150mm) 0.9 + 0.75<br />Lee foundation kit filter holder with Lee 77mm adapter ring</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>My wife is pregnant and is due on Oct. 29. I want to get a new lens to take portraits of the baby, and I'm considering which lens to pick. The one I keep eyeing is the 60mm AF-S micro. I'd like a lens that's really sharp, and can work with tight-croppings of faces with no perspective distortion, and can potentially do pictures of baby feet, etc. I also like the fact that it would be a good lens to do general macro work, since I don't have a lens that does 1:1 right now. I'm a bit worried that it only opens up to f/2.8 however, so I made a list of other things I could do:</p>

<p>Get the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S, and later on get the 105mm micro.</p>

<p>Upgrade (from a D60) to a D90, get the 50mm f/1.8 (D90 needed for autofocus), and later on a 105mm micro.</p>

<p>Get the Tamron 60mm macro f/2.</p>

<p>Replace the kit lens with a 17-50 f/2.8, and later get the 105mm micro.</p>

<p>In all cases, I may upgrade to the D5000, for bracketing, CA correction, and slightly better high ISO performance. I also think you can output to RAW+any JPEG quality.</p>

<p>What would you do in my place? Any other suggestions? I really want to have good pictures of my kid when he's born... I don't want to miss this fleeting time.</p>

<p>Other lenses I have that may be relevant: 35mm AF-S DX, but I'd have to nearly poke the baby with the lens to get tight cropping.</p>

<p>Aperture Ring: It's a throwback from when you set the aperture on the lens with the aperture ring. That went away a long time ago. I have a Canon A-1 (1978), where you turn the aperture ring to the 'O' mark to have the camera control aperture with dials. Most annoying, it's easy to knock the aperture ring off the 'O' mark inadvertently, and mess up the shot.</p>

<p>I change ISO much more often than I change shooting mode (continuous, single, etc.), so it would be cool to have a one turn dial for that, kind of like the setting the ISO on old film cameras.</p>

<p>I like the press and turn system, since it keeps you from accidentally spinning a dial and throwing a setting off. I think the button placement is very natural and intuitive, such that I don't have to take my eyes off the viewfinder to change most settings.</p>

<p>Between Nikon and Canon, I tend to think in more budget oriented models, Canon has a propensity to place more controls on the buttons, rather than Nikon, but Nikon tends to place buttons better.</p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>Heh, just about any direction you head from San Francisco, you will find lots of places to take photos.<br />East (Yosemite): The waterfalls won't be at full throttle, but they will be going. There's plenty to see. The key to Yosemite is that most of the people stay inside the valley and don't set foot outside of it. Get a good hiking book, and it will tell you about trails. When you hike out of the valley, there will still be people, but it won't be crowded at all. Vernal/Nevada Falls and Bridalveil falls still look great even with less water going. It's a fantastic place, and it's fun to visit just about any season. In the southern part of Yosemite there's a giant redwood grove if you're interested in that.</p>

<p>Northwest (Point Reyes/Tomales Bay): I hesitate to give out so much info about this place, because this is sort of the secret getaway for a lot of Northern Californians. The view from the Point Reyes Lighthouse, towards the great beach, is spectacular. Tomales Bay is a tranquil area, they grow lots of oysters there if that's you're sort of thing. The Marin headlands is a great place to view the Golden Gate Bridge (much better than the lousy vista points). Further north, you can reach Fort Brag and Clear Lake, the latter is more of a reacreational boating area, but a fun place to stay. Along the way, there's the Muir Woods, a small park with enormous redwoods (obviously).</p>

<p>North (Napa/Sonoma Counties): Wine country. Hills with vineyards. Good food. Enough said? You can easily roll a Point Reyes/Napa tour together.</p>

<p>South (don't forget south! Carmel, Big Sur, Point Lobos): The Big Sur coastline is spectacular. The area has a few state parks that have some fun hiking. There's one trail that walks past a small waterfall (Julia Pfeifer State Park or something like that).</p>

<p>Really, they're all enjoyable trips. It's just a matter of picking one and going... and when you have more time, going somewhere else after.</p>

<p>In your place, considering season and weather, I'd probably go to Yosemite. In fact, I'm going in August. Other places: California grasses tend to dry out over the course of the summer, and turn yellow. It can make for nice photographs, golden hills, but when the hills are green in May it's really spectacular. Yosemite, in the midst of the Sierra Nevadas, with Evergreen trees, doesn't have this 'issue'. No matter what though, any road trip out of Northern California will be fun.<br>

EDIT: A tip about the California coast - Much of northern california's coast is blanketed by a marine layer, like 90% of the time. Even when weather reports say "sunny," it doesn't factor the possibility of the marine layer. It's good to watch the weather reports on tv (as opposed to online) which give you forecasts about the marine layer. If you go far enough south (past Carmel, usually 30 min or so), it warms up enough to usually burn off the marine layer, and the coastal views change dramatically.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>White balance bracketing</strong><br /><strong>D5000 3 frames in steps of 1</strong><br /><strong>D90 2 or 3 exposures, in increments of 1,2 or 3</strong><br /><strong>Exposure bracketing</strong><br /><strong>D5000 2 or 3 frames in steps of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 1 or 2 <dfn>EV</dfn></strong><br /><strong>D90 2 or 3 frames in steps of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3 or 1 <dfn>EV</dfn></strong><br /><strong>Frames per sec</strong><br /><strong>D5000 4</strong><br /><strong>D90 4.5</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>All these items are minor differences. Both cameras will shoot roughly the same, and will generate pictures that are indistinguishable. The key here is: they both have exposure bracketing, they both shoot about 4'ish FPS in machine gun mode, roughly the same autofocus performance (I think?). Menus (I think) are roughly the same. The difference between D300s and D90/D5000 is greater than the difference between D90/D5k.</p>

<p>The only other notable things to mention: the D5000 has a swivel screen (semi-useful for doing landscape shots with the camera close to the ground with live-view), while the D90 has a bigger higher resolution screen, non-swivel (better for reviewing shots, composing in live view).</p>

<p>I know this autofocus motor issue is beat to death, but I will mention it anyway, since you're into landscapes. Don't read this paragraph if you're bored to tears of it. For Ultra-Wide angle lenses, your major choices are the Sigma 10-20, Tamron 10-24, and Tokina 12-24. The Tokina 12-24 is generally considered the sharpest, but only the DX II version has an autofocus motor. The DX II version is $100 more expensive, and *MUCH* harder to find.</p>

<p>In case I wasn't clear enough the first time: all recent Nikon lenses will meter on the D5000. Not all will autofocus. You will be able to take pictures with all of them, but may have to manual focus some.</p>

<p>Lenses with built in autofocus motors are *good*. In Nikon's case, with AF-S, they tend to focus fast, quietly, and usually have a clutch with allows you to manually over-ride the autofocus (turn the focus ring after the camera has settled on a focus). So, being stuck with AF-S isn't necessarily a bad thing.</p>

<p>There are however, some holes in the Nikon/Tamron/Sigma lens lineup for lenses with built in motors. Right now, there isn't a widely available 85mm prime with built in motor (but that may change soon). There isn't a Canon equivelant of a 'nifty fifty' (cheap 50mm that will autofocus on the D5000): if you want a 50mm with autofocus you will have to pony up $400 for the AF-S f/1.4.</p>

<p>If you're going to upgrade, I recommend the D5000. Save some money for lenses. The $250 difference is worth a 35mm f/1.8. As a learning tool, they're both about equivelant...... unless you want to delve into off-camera flash really early (in that case, go for the D90).</p>

<p>Hi Nick,</p>

<p>They're both fine cameras, and they have the same sensor. Generally, I like to lean towards using money to purchase glass, but it's not so straightforward.</p>

<p>The 'autofocus' issue is that the D5000 doesn't have a built in motor to drive the autofocus of older, non AF-S lenses. The D90 has such a motor, and can act as an off-camera flash controller. Those are the two big differences IMO. Although it's probably hard for a starter to understand what lenses you need and don't need, Nikon (and Sigma/Tamron) offerings for lenses with autofocus motors are slimmer than the full range of lenses.</p>

<p>For ex. Nikon has a great 35 mm AF-S. They have a 50mm AF-S that's $400, but they also have an older 50mm f/1.8 that's only $100, that will not autofocus on the D5000. So, while it may be hard for someone starting out to fathom what lenses to aim for, keep this in mind. If I'm correct, there are ZERO 85mm primes that autofocus on the D5000, but that will change soon. AF-S is good however, so being limited to AF-S with the D5000 isn't necessarily a bad thing.</p>

<p>Generally speaking though, I think it's good to go cheap on your first SLR, mess around with it, take some pictures, and get a feel for what you like and don't like. Then EBay it and get the camera your newly refined taste buds crave.</p>

<p>I have a D60. I use ISO800 without much hesitation, though ISO400 is preferable. ISO1600 is only for complete emergencies (where the noise would be far less problematic than motion blur).</p>

<p>At 50 ft, I wouldn't use flash. I'd use a lens with far far far wider aperture than f/5.6. Ignoring the flash & underexposure for example, I think you could have shot at ISO400 and f/2.8 at roughly the same exposure time.</p>

<p>Some other suggestions:<br>

<br />If you do not intend to use your filters with a lens hood, I think it's a good idea to buy screw on filters for the maximum size threading that you're going to have for your lens collection. It would be dreadfully expensive to buy a Hoya SHMC CP for every filter thread size you have. Rather, buy the largest, and use cheap step-up rings to adapt the filter to your smaller lenses. A little forthought can save you a lot of money. The caveat is important though: if you want to use your lens hood with the filter, just suck it up and buy the filter for the lens.</p>

<p>Also, Graduated ND filters are best used as slot-in filters, such as those made by Lee or Cokin. This way you can raise/lower the transition line in the frame. Screw on GND's are near worthless in my opinion.</p>

<p>Honestly John, I like your photo better. HDR can be nice, vivid, etc. but at the same time, once you've seen it more than a handful of times, you start to look for qualities other than color vivacity. It balances out all lighting in the picture, but that isn't necessarily a good thing. Shadows are important to pictures too.</p>

<p>However, post-processing can be beneficial. There are lots of things you can do to improve saturation and contrast while shooting pictures as well (someone mentioned a polarizing filter). Also, as you probably know, California grass turns brown from the dry weather around June. If you want your landscapes to be lush green, it's best to hit the road in early May. Secondly, some of it is just luck: the clouds add a lot in the HDR picture, and in yours, it's a cloudless day. A lot of serious landscape photographers plan pretty far in advance for weather, season, etc... but HDR is a quick dirty way of creating punchy-looking photos, often bulldozing away other qualities that are important in photography.</p>

<p>I agree that an 18-55 is plenty for landscapes. A 10-xx ultra-wide angle will open some doors for you, but you can get quite far with what you already have with landscapes.</p>

<p>Wildlife on the other hand, you will want a longer telephoto lens. 55-250 isn't particularly long, especially for birds, as mentioned. 70-300 ($550) might be somewhat better. With birds, I find that at 200mm... you can't even get close enough for a decent crop. 300mm might be *just* enough. Once you get past 300mm, you get into a whole different territory in terms of cost and lens size.</p>

<p>I was considering getting the 60mm macro for portraits. Can anyone comment on the autofocus speed? I want to shoot kids... toddlers and such. You know how fleeting that can be... I'm concerned about the lens slewing up and down the large focus range.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You'd find that a family pic with a wide angle lens will make your family small and the view sweeping.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unless you get *really* close. This is afterall, how people make the big nose pics with pets.</p>

<p>Megan, you never just set out to buy a lens for the sake of buying a lens. You imagine what kind of pictures you want to take and see what kind of lens properties you need to do it. You then go and buy then lens. You have good stuff for portrait work. You have to decide what kind of pictures you want to take (but can't given your current collection) and go from there.</p>

<p>Can you check what your exposure settings were? A common issue is that when you use flash, you have a limitation called a flash sync speed. For daytime, this usually means that the shutter will be forced to stay open longer than you would normally expose for daytime (the view outdoors).</p>

<p>The best way to deal with this is usually to stop down until the view outdoors meters to be less than your flash sync speed (for modern digital cameras, it's 1/250th or so. so use a slow ISO, and stop down until you get... say 1/100'ish). Then use the flash to fill in the details in the room (the flash will cutoff automatically, but you could dial it down if it's still overdoing it).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Philip I see you're a pro-Nikon guy and experience from field is worth to note.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use Nikon as the DSLR platform, but I don't have a strong preference for them. I like Canon quite a lot. I just think for your particular case, with a need for high-ISO for concert photography, that I would lean to the D90. *Always* pick the camera you like of course (and it's hard to know all the details without working with it for some time)... but all things being equal, I think the D90 is a better choice.</p>

<p>Jeff however, quite honestly, has much much more experience with concerts. His website is outstanding. But it has nothing to do with equipment, and we're talking equipment.</p>

<p>You have to understand where the D90 (and the D3/D3S) are in the Nikon line, as 2008 releases. They marked the day when, to put it in the least controversial terms, really gave Canon some serious competition with high-ISO performance and dynamic range.<br />Concert photography is challenging. It's dark, the musicians are moving, contrast can be high, and it's hard to be in the right place at the right time and frame everything. In these situations, you want to do everything in your power to get a fast exposure, nicely saturated, and (should you choose) with little noise. When I was in these situations (not nearly as often as Jeff... not all musicians/venues allowed cameras without press passes), I really wanted to push ISO to 1600/3200, and the aperture as wide as I could, and even then you might find yourself being 'steadycam'.</p>

<p>All this points to: fast primes, high-ISO performance.</p>

<p>Zooms: Yes, you can use zooms, depending on the venue, but it'll be a tradeoff. F/2.8 is slower than what the primes will get you, so you may find yourself dealing with subject motion more often, or cranking ISO. Every venue is different, every band likes different lighting, but it isn't unheard of to be at a concert, at ISO 1600, f/2, and your meter scoffs and tells you 1/4s.</p>

<p>Everything changes though... if they let you use flash, but you can't count on that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've shot concerts for years with one. BTW, I have plenty of shots of concerts on my website. Couldn't find yours.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Heh. You seem so offended by my opinion. I'm sure you could use the 50mm f/1.4. I'm sure I use a couple of lenses you wouldn't use either, my fellow SF concertgoer. But, let's throw the lens on the list: Canon 50mm f/1.4 ($350)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>These sites assign numbers to things in rather trivial ways. I would recommend avoiding them.<br />Based on many years of concert shooting and general shooting experience, I would recommend that you go with what seems most comfortable. The brand isn't going to be the major factor in any results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ultimately, picking the camera you are most comfortable with is the most important. But when asked to choose between those two specific cameras, I will answer why. If you don't like the arbitrary numbers, the data on SNR and dynamic range are available on the dxomark website for both cameras:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/267%7C0/(appareil2)/294%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Nikon">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/267%7C0/(appareil2)/294%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Nikon</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>James, the Canon 5D II and 7D are, respectively, the best full frame and crop bodies currently available.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would agree with the 2nd part, but neither of these cameras are on the list. (I do think though, James, that you should consider the 7D).</p>

<p>Hmm. I think you go into Photoshop, select the rubber band tool, change it to fixed aspect ration, enter in 11 x 14, draw a box around what you want to show, crop, and save.</p>

<p>If you want to show all of the picture, you adjust canvas size to make a border, and increase the smaller dimension until you get an 11 x 14 ratio. [3278 x 4172, and 4275 x 3359 if my math is right].</p>

<p>(here we go again!)</p>

<p>To me, concert photography (at least the venues I go to) are very challenging. In these instances, you tend to want the fastest lens, and the best ISO performance. No disrespect to the 50D, but this would lead me to the D90, and a host of 85 and 50mm lenses.</p>

<p>The lens issues may also sway you. I would avoid the Canon 50mm f/1.4, which means you get a choice between the awesome 50mm f/1.2L ($1500!!), or the rickety, but optically decent 50mm f/1.8 ($100). Canon's 85mm offerings are: f/1.8 (a nice healthy $400), or the f/1.2L ($1800!!!!!!!).</p>

<p>Nikon's offerings: 50mm AF-S f/1.4 ($400'ish), 50mm f/1.8 ($120'ish), 85mm f/1.8 ($400), 85mm f/1.4 ($1300).</p>

<p>As you can see, for the lenses in question, Canon L's are definately *NOT* cheaper than Nikon's.</p>

<p>Check out DXOmark.com (<a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings</a>). This is one of the instances where DXOmark is relevant: the D90 has a low-light sensor performance rating of 977. It is *incredibly* good... The 50D has a low-light sensor performance rating of 696.</p>

<p>The other things you write about Canon and Nikon, I think as Samuel says, are either overblown or incorrect assumptions. For example... histogram in live view? Your eye is going to be in the viewfinder. AF & Metering? The differences betwen Canon and Nikon are scant.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[Nikon readers, take no offense - this is the EOS forum and if we can't swagger a little here, where else? Consider it repayment for all the references on the Nikon forum to how Canon just <em>recently (<strong>1987</strong>)</em> orphaned all the FD users, so they switched to Nikon.]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hahaha xD. My guess would be that if they make the Mark III, it's not the megapixels they'll work on but it's the speed. The 7D is, I think, significantly faster than the Mark II (the 1DM4 is like... 2x as fast?), speed being the 5DM2's major criticism. If you don't need speed (and I think, most people, even pros, don't), everything about the Mark II is really good, so why not get it?</p>

<p>Adding megapixels would just be absurd... (and it would probably make the continuous shooting mode even slower) though I suppose Canon might be feeling just a little sweat from Sony.</p>

<p>Anyhow, congrats Juan. Enjoy!</p>

<p>- I do agree that opening up consideration for zooms is wise. Primes are nice lenses, but I think the "prime's are awesome!" mantra is a bit overdone. Zooms have gotten a lot better since their introduction, and whereas primes give you more flexibility in terms of aperture, zooms give you flexibility with perspective. A zoom will simply broaden the range of photographs you can take.</p>

<p>- The D5000 is what you bought, and the D5000 is a fine camera. If I had a D5000, I would not look back with any regret, and with the current offerings, I would not be compelled to upgrade to anything short of a D300s. Yes, the camera doesn't autofocus AF-D, and that slashes your lens selection down... don't worry about it, Tamron and Sigma have you covered, and in general AF-S is a *good* thing. Remote flash: if you really wanted to do it, buy a remote flash commander. In some ways, it's better than the wireless flash control on the D90. So don't have any regrets... the D5000 has a similar sensor, and roughly the same high ISO performance as the D90.</p>

<p>-35mm is great for portraits, but 50-85 I think is more intimate... you get closer without getting physically closer and worrying about focus/perspective issues. I'll make a last push for the 60mm macro: 50mm lenses tend to... not be that great wide open (say from f/1.4-f/2.8), not to mention that you're dealing with thinner depths of field. Macro lenses however, tend to be pretty awesome wide open, so you're getting similar sharpness "sweet spots" with a 60mm macro and a 50mm lens. The 60mm macro also gives you something you lost when you passed on the kit lens: close focusing. The reason (I think) macro lenses tend to be poorer for portrait work is autofocusing time... the lens will hunt across a wider range to get focus. It is a consideration, but it really isn't a bad tradeoff to put a great lens in your pocket that opens up new doors.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Other than that, I could get a zoom. Suppose I don't have much use for the 35-50mm focal length, would you prefer getting a slower wide zoom like 10-20 f/3.5 or 12-24 f/4 or a 17-50 f/2.8? Is the 17-35mm range crucial or does the UWA range open more creative possibilities?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you get an ultra-wide zoom, emphasis sharpness, then zoom range, then give a passing glance at aperture. Ultra-wides are not created equal, some tend to be very soft. Given that you only cover 35mm though, you might want to consider the 10-24 or 12-24 range, which is generally useful. The Sigma 10-20 might be kinda limited....... 10 I find is simply too wide for many situations (and they vignette with Cokin P filters if you ever get into that). The meat of ultrawide landscape work I think is within 12-20... and 20-24 is a useful range that you don't have covered.</p>

<p>Aperture is nearly pointless for ultra-wides. It's hard to get good bokeh (half the point of ultrawides is to get *everything* in focus), and you will be stopping down to f/8 on nearly every lens for both depth of field and maximum sharpness.</p>

<p>That said, the Tokina 12-24mm, with the autofocus motor, if you can find it, may be the best bet. Your other choice is the Tamron 10-24... which gets mixed reviews [it's what I have though, and I admit corner softness is an issue].</p>

<p>Other than that... yeah, what everybody says about 17/18-50mm f/2.8 is great. You just have to decide which focal length you want to start working on. Intimate portraits: 50/60/85 primes. Perspective portraits and landscapes: ultrawide. General fun: 17-50.</p>

<p>It really depends on what you want to take pictures of, and what you mean by "professional" (I usually define it as someone trying to earn an income).</p>

<p>A quick glance at your flickr: seems like you like street and portrait photography. A budget/mid-range SLR is fine for that, and all the major manufacturers produce good cameras in this class. All you have to do is go to a store and check them out, and see what jumps out at you.</p>

<p>A word of warning however, is that if you want to delve deeper into SLR photography, the manufacturers with the broadest library of compatible lenses tends to be Canon and Nikon. If you're aiming for the usual kit of lenses, standard zooms, telephoto zooms, 50mm primes, etc., just about any manufacturer will have a broad library. But once you start going a bit beyond that, you'll find that the available lenses for other manufacturers (Sony, Pentax) may narrow just a bit.</p>

<p>That said, with street photography/portraits, you probably want to think about primes lenses, and which platform will let you use those lenses. Just some pointers:</p>

<p>Sigma's 50mm lens is available for both.</p>

<p>Nikon: Has a *great*, affordable 35mm f/1.8, and autofocuses on all cameras. Nikon has 2 85mm offerings, which are sharp, but do not autofocus on the budget D3000 or D5000. Nikon's 50mm f/1.4 AF-S autofocuses for everything, and won't bust you're wallet (it's $450).</p>

<p>Canon: it's 35mm f/2 works great, slightly slower than it's class, is affordable, and has a loud, mechanical AF motor. The newer, more modern 35mm f/1.4L will make your wallet hurt. Similarly, the Canon 50mm offerings all autofocus on all bodies, but the cheaper ones are louder, and the newer ones (which go to f/1.2) will break your wallet. Canon's 85mm lenses autofocus on all their bodies. It's 85mm f/1.8 USM is very decent, affordable, and has a modern, quiet, ultrasonic motor. The 85mm f/1.2L is *SCARY* expensive, so pricing will probably push you to the f/1.8.</p>

<p>At least for a portrait photographer, those are the concerns I'd look at. In short, Nikon has nice middle range offerings, and you want to go D90 (over the D5000 or D3000) if you want to use the 85mm lenses. Canon is more straightforward, good 85mm offerings, but on the 35mm end (which may be more useful for street), it's budget 35mm may be more dated.</p>

<p>I don't think however, you can just jump fresh to SLR photography and really aim for being "pro" when shopping. You can't buy your way into quality photos, nor do you know what to look for when camera shopping unless you've spent a significant amount of time handling them, taking pictures, and dealing with camera limitations.</p>

<p>I second the recommendation on the 2 stop hard and the 3 stop soft ND filters. I have a 2 stop hard, it works fine. I have a 2 stop soft, but what happens is you rarely use the fully "dark" end, but use the transition region which obviously is lighter than the indicated rating. I find that 2 stop soft usually isn't enough.</p>

<p>A circular polarizer is always useful (though you may want to consider not buying the Cokin one, and just by a screw on one). I don't know how good the Cokin CP is (i'd certainly like people to chime in).</p>

<p>I also find a *non* graduated ND filter to be useful. It lets you shoot wide open with primes in bright light, and also helps you get around flash sync speed issues.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, it's really easy to tell in your photo here that the Canon gal is giving the Nikon chic a beating...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From my perspective, it looks like the girl on the right is holding both cameras, and the girl on the left is trying to grab the D3 =P.</p>