Get Yourself a "Nifty Fifty".

“Nifty Fifty” is the pet term photographers have for what is often called a “standard lens”. That term resulted from 50mm lenses being the lens that usually came along with 35mm rangefinders and especially 35mm slrs. The term “standard” also refers to the idea that a lens in that focal length range closely approximates the angle of human vision. In other words, a photo taken with a standard lens is going to look most like what you remember the scene looking like when you viewed it with your naked eyes.

“Nifty Fifty” came about because the lens is, well, nifty. It can be the most inexpensive lens you can buy that still offers top optical quality. It's often small in comparison to other focal lengths, relatively fast so it can be used in a wide range of lighting conditions, and is free of some of the idiosyncrasies found in other focal lengths.

It can also be the best lens to use if you want to really work on your skills when it comes to composition and “photographic seeing”. It's almost counter-intuitive that a lens which gives photographs a “normal” look can force you to look beyond the normal into what makes for an effective photograph.

An added benefit is that unless you buy a fast, premium grade “Nifty Fifty” the lens can also be very lightweight and compact, lending to an easier walk-around kit to carry with you more often.

Keep in mind that 50mm is the “Equivalent Focal Length” of a variety of lens types. That 50mm is “standard for Full Frame cameras such as the newly announced Nikon D850 and other cameras that have sensors the same size as a 35mm film frame. If you are using APS-C, then a 35mm lens is going to be closer to the “Nifty Fifty” range due to the crop factor. For Micro Four Thirds it would be a 25mm lens.

At this point you may be asking why bother with a fixed focal length (prime) lens in an age were zoom lenses offer outstanding quality and versatility. Why deal with having to walk back and forth to get the right framing when a twist of a zoom ring can do the same thing more quickly and easily?

Technically, there is the fact that a typical standard prime is at least 1 stop faster than a zoom lens covering the same range. If you're using a kit zoom, which typically has a maximum aperture of f3.5 to f4, your talking about 2 stops, maybe more. That is enough to make the difference between a messy, blurry shot in low light and one that is clear and lower in noise.

Also, that larger aperture is going to lend itself to the shallower depth of field and out of focus background that is a popular aspect of portraits. So if you want to achieve that look without paying a lot of money for fast zoom lenses, a 50mm EFL lens is a good way to get started.

Remember I said the “Nifty Fifty” is a good lens to use if you are wanting to hone your skills? Those few seconds it may take you to get the right framing may also lead you to think a bit more about how to make sure the photo turns out best. We live in a fast-paced world and our cameras are designed for that. However, there are times where the best photographs result from taking some time to previsualize the final result, and even whether or not the photo is worth taking.

That's one of my main reasons for recently buying a small, fully manual 25mm f1.8 lens (50mm EFL on my Micro Four Thirds cameras). I've started a personal project that is intended to expand how I “see photographically” and explore new territory when it comes to the sort of images I want to produce and sell. It's a gem of a lens made by a newer company called “7 Artisans”. Right now they only offer 4 lenses, but it looks like they tapped right into the recent trend of offering small, manual prime lenses with solid performance. (The 7 Artisan lenses are only available for certain mirrorless systems right now, so if you own a dslr you will need to take advantage of the many good lenses available from other companies.)

As I walk around with this lens, I take more time to really look at things I am about to capture with my camera. The very act of taking the extra time to focus and make exposure adjustments also gives me time to look at what is in the viewfinder and consider how it's going to look as a photograph. This has led to me being more thoughtful in choosing and composing photos. I'm finding myself deciding not to capture some scenes that I would have just grabbed in the past and then decided in post processing whether the image worked or not.

It's taken me back to the old days when I could only afford so many rolls of film a month and so had to make sure every shot counted.

The lens also has its own “look” that is subtly different from my premium grade zooms. Part of this is the 12 bladed aperture which gives almost perfectly round out of focus highlights and introduces a star effect on light sources even at large apertures. A lens like that promotes a particular style, and that's actually what I'm looking to do.

Whether you own Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji or any brand of camera (whether digital or film) you should invest in a “Nifty Fifty” if you haven't already. If you have one and haven't been using it, dust it off and try going on photo forays with just that 1 lens. It may be a bit frustrating at first, but eventually you'll find yourself doing a lot more “photographic seeing” than simply trying to capture a nice photo.

Do You Really Need a "Pro Level" Camera?

For as long as I've been seriously involved in photography (40 years), manufacturers have evoked the idea of professionals and “professional results” for their cameras. This applies even to lower tier and even entry level models. For instance, when I was shopping for my first 35mm SLR back in 1977, Canon had ads touting the AE-1 as being used by professionals. Did that mean the AE-1, a camera with decidedly beginner-oriented features and price, was a “professional camera”? It was used by professionals.

What is a “professional camera” anyway? Perhaps a more relevant question is “Who really needs a professional camera, and why?”

During the film era, when both entry level and flagship cameras alike used the same film and lenses, the pro cameras were the ones with the most features, greatest durability and highest price tag. They came with features such as motor drives, interchangeable viewfinders and focusing screens, a wider range of shutter speeds and in some cases, better metering systems and a plethora of accessories. They were designed to help professional photographers produce images under as wide a variety of conditions and situations as possible, and provide reliable functioning despite physical abuse and hundreds of thousands of shutter actuations.

They didn't actually take better pictures though. A $200 SLR used the same film and lenses as a $1000 flagship model. Often, amateurs bought pro cameras because of the allure of the camera itself, not necessarily because their photos would turn out better. Marketing people were very aware of this and worked the angle as much as possible.

Things changed-a bit-as photography progressed from film to digital. For years, a pro level camera body could indeed have a sensor system which produced better overall image quality under a greater range of lighting conditions than lower tier cameras did. It could legitimately be argued that a Nikon D2 would give better results than a Nikon D60, because of a much better sensor.

That performance gap has narrowed over the years, even to the point where “full frame” sensors are now available in cameras that have a price point that was unheard of 10 years ago. Apart from that, sensor technology has improved so much that the differences between tiers within a system, and even between m4/3, APS-C and FF have become marginal in most shooting situations. As a result, the idea that a pro level camera will produce better-looking photos no longer applies to most situations.

The fact is that right now, a $400 entry level camera can produce images that are good enough that most people can't tell them apart from those taken with a $5000 flagship model.

So why do pros still invest in pro level cameras, if the photos look so much alike. The answer is the same reasons why pros bought flagship models during the film era. Durability/reliability and features.

Here are my own reasons for choosing the top of the line (at the time) Olympus OMD EM-1 over less expensive Olympus models, even though the sensors were essentially the same.

• Shutter construction. The shutter is rated (unofficially) at 200,000 actuations. While for most people, this represents years, or even decades of use, for me it's more like 3 to 4 years, and that because I use 2 bodies for my work. Will the camera suddenly fail at actuation number 200,001? Of course not. But this spec tells me the camera is built to last a longer time than a camera rated at only 100,000 actuations, or not rated at all. (My lower tier 4/3 bodies were showing their age at less than 100K actuations.)

• Overall construction. The EM-1 is machined from metal and weather-sealed overall. It feels very solid in my hands, giving me confidence that it's meant to take a beating that lesser cameras may not survive. What does the weather-sealing do for me? I was shooting an outdoor concert when it began to rain, hard. The performance continued, and I kept shooting, because both the camera and my lenses were designed to keep function in just this sort of situation.

• Control options. The EM-1 has a dial around the shutter, a thumb dial, and about half a dozen levers and buttons I can customize to perform various functions. Instead of having to dive into a menu to perform functions such as switching auto focus or exposure modes, I just toggle a lever or push a button.

• Legacy-friendly features. My go-to lens for about 80% of my concert work is the Olympus 50-200 f2.8 to 3.5 zoom lens. It's made for the older 4/3 system. Used on lower tier m4/3 cameras, if focuses pretty slowly. Because the EM-1 was designed with pros in mind who would want to still use 4/3 lenses, I actually get faster AF now than when I used the lens on the lower tier 4/3 cameras I used to use.

• “What If” features. There are some capabilities of the EM-1 that I don't currently have much need for, but it's nice to know they are there. It has a PC socket, so if I ever find myself using older strobes which require a PC cord, I can do so. It also has burst rate up to 11 fps. I don't shoot sports, but every once in a while I do find that high a burst rate useful for a dance show or with highly animated performers.

This isn't my EM-1, but I have gotten mine this wet before. 

All these features considered, could I produce equally good images with the entry level EM-10 Mk2? Absolutely. In fact, some aspects of the IQ from that camera might be a bit better, because it has a newer sensor. The thing is, the features of the EM-1 flagship model make for a better workflow and shooting experience, as well as the confidence that I'm going to be able to use my cameras for years to come.

Now, what does all this have to do with the title of this article?

Simple: if a $400 camera can give you essentially the same image quality as a $1500 or even a $5000 camera, why spend the extra money?

The answer is that you don't really need to. With many manufacturers, things like weather-sealing, more than adequate burst rate and a plethora of features can be found on lower tier and even entry-level cameras. As far as my bullet points are concerned, consider these factors:

• Most people will find themselves wanting a newer camera with the latest features and best sensor performance long before their current camera is ready to retire due to usage.

• Weather-sealing is also more common now on lower tier cameras, and few people really need the level of durability that flagship cameras offer.

• Likewise, few people need the extended shooting capability that top tier pro models offer when it comes to low light capabilities.

• Unless you are an enthusiast or plan on getting that serious about photography, the basic level of control any camera offers is more than enough for most picture taking situations.

• Unique or rarely used features apply to unique or rarely encountered situations. Don't pay extra for a camera with a PC socket or ultra high burst rate if you are only going to ever use on camera or built in flash and 5 or 6 fps is more than enough for kids' soccer games.

The bottom line is that in about 95% of situations, those awe-inspiring professional cameras don't produce photos that look any better than the entry level cameras occupying the shelves at Best Buy or the “most popular” ranking on Amazon.com. In fact, I have some photos taken with my smartphone that I would have to “pixel peep” or look at the EXIF data to verify that they weren't taken with my pro grade EM-1.

Here's a “secret” to better photographs that seems to elude a lot of “experts” on which camera models to own for the best image quality. It's the lenses. For the most part, you're better off buying a lower tier camera and investing in better lenses than buying a higher tier body (as long as you don't need the sort of features discussed above).

Another “secret” is this: save some money on gear and instead spend it on classes or books about photography. That's how pros get to be pros. We learn how to make the most out of any cameras we have due to knowledge and experience, then buy the cameras we need to get the job done.