SLRs

[Jeewhizz]

Need an SLR for business use. It will mainly be used for:

Product shots,
Photos of client vans/offices
Some inside shots

I will also most likely pinch it for family stuff too, so I'd like it to take nice landscape shots, family photos and some macro shots.

Budget is flexible, but I don't want to spend thousands.

What will I need? What lenses do you recommend? And what retailers/online stores.

Cheers,
Jee

[Whatever]

This one any good?

[slaughteredlamb]

Any DSLR will do what you need, whereas you will get extra performance and a few other features from the likes of a Canon 40D or Nikon D300, you won't need it. I'd also stick with one of the two main brands, Nikon or Canon as you have the biggest choice of lenses (yes Fuji does support the Nikon lens mount but that camera is overkill for your needs too).

I would buy either the Canon 400D or the Nikon D40X or Nikon D80. Although there are some differences between these cameras all of them are more than capable of taking the kind of photo you are talking about so I would just go with whichever suits your budget and feels best in your hands.

In terms of lenses:

Product Shots.
Well it all depends on how big the product is but if you are talking about something that you could photograph on a table in your house than something like a 50mm lens or a lens offering 50mm in it's focal length is probably ideal. For smaller objects, like mobile phones for example, you might want a lens offering around 70mm (or just move closer with a 50mm lens). For very small objects you might benefit from a macro lens.

The kit lenses that come with these cameras tend to be around the 18-55mm focal range. This should be fine for most of what you intend to do and for some product shots but you might possibly want to think about buying a better quality lens at some point. There's nothing really wrong with the kit lens but just bare in mind that these are lenses that are purely meant to get you up and running.

Photos of clients vans/offices.
A kit lens of 18-55 will be fine for almost all of these shots

Inside shots.
An 18-55 kit lens should be okay for most internal shots in terms of focal length but the kit lens isn't a 'fast' lens (doesnt let in that much light) therefore if the room is not flooded with light you might need to either increase your ISO a lot and possibly get noise, use flash and possibly get dark shadows or even plunge the background into darkness if it's a big room (light from a flash does not travel great distances), or have to use a tripod.

Family Photos.
Again the kit lens will be okay for most stuff but you will want a longer lens as well

Macro.
The kit lens won't be any good for this. For macro you need two things. 1. A longer focal length than 55mm as otherwise you would have to be so close to anything you would want to photograph that you would either scare it off or cast a big shadow. 2. You need a lens that can offer 1:2 (half life size) or 1:1 (life size) magnification. True macro starts at 1:1 but lenses that offer this are more expensive than their 1:2 counterparts and unless you do a lot of macro you may well find that this is enough.

So what to buy? In order to cope with everything you've mentioned and give you maximum flexibility I'd look at buying:

Canon 400D with 18-55 kit lens
Canon 55-200
(you can get all the above PLUS a battery grip for £579)
Sigma EF 530 Super DG speedlite - £199

Manfrotto 055XB Tripod - £119
Manfrotto 488 Midi Ball Head - £55

I would also look at buying a light tent for your product shots, Lowepro do nice and expensive ones alternatively look on Ebay and you can pick up very good 'copies' for around £25 (depending on what size you want). If you go down this route than I would add to your list the Sigma EF 530 Standard DG speedlite £119 and two lighting stands as then you could use the two speedlites as 'studio lights' for your light tent. If you wanted to be 'posh' chuck in a Sekonic L-308 S lightmeter £120 to take light readings with your 'studio lights' or just keep 'chimping' (shooting and looking at the exposure on the camera and adjusting lights and exposure accordingly).

HTH

EDIT: Oh and I would buy from Warehouseexpress.com probably the best online retailer in the UK

[Jeewhizz]

Mr SL, you are a legend

Thinking more on it, I am probably not going to do so many product shots. It's something that I'd like to get into however, so as long as the camera will do it, I'll be happy.

How do you determine the quality of the camera? Is using megapixels as a guide foolish?

And what sort of filters would I need for outdoor use, if any?

Cheers,
Jee

[slaughteredlamb]

Mr SL, you are a legend

Thinking more on it, I am probably not going to do so many product shots. It's something that I'd like to get into however, so as long as the camera will do it, I'll be happy.

How do you determine the quality of the camera? Is using megapixels as a guide foolish?

And what sort of filters would I need for outdoor use, if any?

Cheers,
Jee

Megapixels is only part of the story when it comes to determining quality. For example a 3MP DSLR will still wipe the floor in terms of image quality with a 5MP compact. Put it like this a 6MP DSLR is going to be more than ample for most people, 8MP is slightly better and as you can't easily buy a 6MP DSLR anymore you are basically looking at 8MP as an entry point these days. 10MP cameras are obviously better still but manufacturers are realising that there are only so many pixels you can fit on a small sensor so they are introducing full frame sensors. An 8MP full frame sensor will be much better than an 8MP 1.6x sensor as on most current DSLR's. Basically 8MP is ample.

What you should be looking at in terms of quality are features that you need, better metering, more metering modes (does it have a true spot meter), size of buffer, fps etc etc and then you want to look at your lenses. A crap lens on a great camera will give you crap pictures.

As for filters, just buy a circular polariser and if you want to get fancy a set of neutral density filters and graduated neutral density filters. Everything else can be done more accurately in Photoshop.

HTH

[Britman]

you might want to consider get a UV filter to have attached permanently.

A bit more about megapixels:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

[slaughteredlamb]

Britman does raise a good point with regards to UV filters.

For more years than I care to remember the general rule of thumb was to whack a UV filter onto the front of any lens. The sole purpose of this lens was to protect the front element of the lens from scratching the thinking being that replacing a scratched UV filter is going to be cheaper than replacing the lens. However there is a growing new school of thought that I personally subscribe to and that is that UV filters are not really needed.

Basic laws of optics/refraction effectively state that any piece of glass, even totally clear glass, will cause the light passing through it to refract or reflect slightly so what effect does this have on your photos?

In low light conditions having a UV filter attached can reduce the amount of light entering the lens by enough to force you to use a higher ISO, larger aperture or slower shutter speed than you would want.

In normal light a UV filter can reduce the sharpness of the photo and reduce colour saturation

In bright light the same applys but there is also the increased chance of lens flare

'Cheap' UV filters are more succeptable to these kind of problems than their more expensive counterparts so if you do decide to buy one invest in something decent.

Many Pro photographers now simply don't use UV filters at all for 2 very good reasons.

1. Why spend hundreds or thousands of pounds on the best lens/optics that money can buy only to slap a £50 bit of glass on the front of it that will reduce the quality of the lens it's attached to.

2. It's surprisingly hard to sratch the front element of your lens. Most pro's will use a lens hood 99% of the time which offers ample protection from scratches apart from a direct hit to the front of the lens.

I used to have a Pro Hoya filter for my 70-200 which cost me a fortune (£70 IRC). I used it for about a year and then realised it was largely pointless.

At the end of the day it's a personal choice and what you feel most comfortable with.

[sarahA]

Good tip SL, I put the UV filter on (umm sub £10 cost) but found a bit of sharpness lost. Would it also cause a flare effect on say street lights at night?

I've got the 400D. I paid £365 from warehouse express for it (body only) and bought the 50mm f1.8 instead of getting the lens kit (it was the old version offered, not the newer one). I've also got hurri's old 18-55mm (I think) sigma to use for wider angle, however I love the 50mm (£60-70). It's definitely good value for money in my books. Here are all my pics on flickr taken with it - Canon 400D.

[slaughteredlamb]

Good tip SL, I put the UV filter on (umm sub £10 cost) but found a bit of sharpness lost. Would it also cause a flare effect on say street lights at night?

When shooting at night you are typically talking about long exposures (several seconds in duration) which can cause lights to appear like 'stars'. There is a technical term and explanation for this but for the life of me I can't remember what it is but am sure someone more knowledgable will be able to explain it. As street lights are not very powerful it is unlikely that a UV filter will cause flare on it's own. However, if the filter is dusty than the chances of flare both at night and in the day are increased.

The only time I would use a UV filter myself is if there was a chance of something hitting the front of my lens such as dust or sand and sea spray on a beach. But even then I would use a good UV filter as, like you've experienced, a cheapy one just causes more problems than it's worth.

[samhs]

The flare changes shape according to the number of fins in your aperture mechanism - i.e. if the lens has a 7 part mechanism, you'll see that reflected in the light-flares. It's unavoidable with long exposures, but when you know what to expect, you can account for it and use it to your artistic benefit.

[slaughteredlamb]

See, I said someone more knowledgable would it explain it 

[sarahA]

Cheers guys. The flare effect is pretty cool, I was just checking

Sorry for the hijack Jee..