Rob,
and FWIW if your customer has to ask about preferred cameras for professionals they don't need a professional camera.
Amen x10000! I hate to sound like a snob but.. I can't stand people who think that if they purchase a $5000 camera, that it will make them a photographer. Please tell them to do their own legwork! Heck, I sometimes can't even call myself a photographer, I don't make a living at it so I'm not a pro. I've done gigs and such, but I have another job and don't dedicate myself to photography. So I'd technically call myself an very experienced enthusiast. I'd only call myself a professional if my constant and main source of income was from shooting. Technicality, yeah.. but true. I was a professional, but no longer am. That's just how it goes.
whats the difference between SLR, DSLR, and a compact
SLR = Single Lens Reflect Camera. DSLR = Digital Single Lens Reflect
So obviously, SLR can be either film or digital, digital being denoted by the "D" in DSLR
The difference between compact and SLR (digital or not) is the ability to change lenses and usually the amount of manual control one has over the exposure settings, such as Shutter speed, aperture ISO value as well as focus control *auto or manual*. And quite obviously, the other big difference is size! There are also things called "bridge" cameras. These are something in between compacts and SLR's.
I've got an Canon S3IS, which is considered a bridge camera. It's not as small as your typical ELF model and such, and gives you far more control vs other smaller point and shoots. It also sports an EVF (electronic view finder) which is very convenient since it gives you an overview of all the exposure settings when you peep through the eye piece (that's the viewfinder).
HDR = High Dynamic Range. This is typically a very gimmicky feature that people love to abuse because it creates a very dramatic effect when used improperly. I say improperly because HDR can actually work very well when not over done. I'm personally not a fan of using HDR, and would rather just nail the exposure properly the first time, which can call for using the right tool for the job. Usually such a tool would consist of a set of filters, that allow you to play with how the sensor of the camera is metering the light on your subject. That's a long story, so I'll reserve that for another time if you really need to know. Otherwise, I'm sure I can find you a great article somewhere from "the Google".
I didn't actually answer your question. HDR is what you get out of a shot by taking a bracketed series of photos in which the exposure ranges from underexposed, to properly exposed to overexposed. When you combine these images either IN the camera (certain cameras have this feature) or in Photoshop or another program, they produce an image with very broad dynamic range. It's easy to tweak such an image with tons of incremental adjustments in contrast, micro contrast and gamma etc.. so the effects can vary widely. Most of the time people get out of control and make their photos look very cartoonish, which I can't stand personally speaking.
What is the 55-200mm thing
Very simply put, this is the focal length of a lens. The reach. Such a lens is usually quite cheap and also slow in terms of Aperture. But that is yet another story! There's a thread
here that covers the very basics about what aperture is. I haven't actually read it, but can't imagine it being wrong since it's a very short write up. Maybe I'll add to it if need be at some point.
Why do people buy new lenses? How would I know why a certain lens is superior/for a different task than the one before
This is kind of like the same question as the one I quoted at the beginning. If a person has no idea as to why they'd need a different lens, they have zero business being behind an SLR. I'll try to answer this though, and try not to sound like a Richard in the process. I can think of many reasons. For one thing, Certain focal lengths are meant to shoot specific types of scenarios. For instance, once you get below say 70mm, and start getting into wider lenses on a full frame camera, you're going to see some distortion if you're using that lens for portraits.
The typical portrait focal length is 85mm. This provides the perfect depth of field (DOF) and natural roundness needed for facial portraits. Above 85mm is great too, and will usually provide better isolation of the subject, as you have to stand further back. This can get really in depth, so I'll cut it here.
Under say 50mm, you're really going to start seeing facial distortions, in the way of the face looking like it's getting skinnier perhaps. Not very flattering to be honest. You might think so, but not so! Obviously telephoto lenses are great for birding. Wide angle for interiors and landscapes. Other reasons: Different lenses have different visual signatures. Especially older manual focus lenses, which I'm quite fond of. I'm a fiend for the tons of different types of manual focus lenses out there.
In fact, I tend to look for any type of lens that has an interesting visual signature. Doesn't matter what brand it is, since there are adapters available which will enable me to hook up say, an Canon lens to my Nikon DSLR. Or perhaps an Pentax, Zeiss, Voightlander lens and so on.
What is the best brand/most favoured brand of proffesional cameras?
Depends on your field. Most prosumers go for the obvious Canon, Nikon. Pentax make a couple of decent models, as does Sony. But when you buy into a brand, you're buying into a system. It's really the same as buying an Mac! When you get an Apple product, you kind of get sucked into the ecosystem, right? Same thing with a camera. You have to consider what lenses are available, and the ergonomics and menu system of the camera. Some prefer Canon and others prefer Nikon in that regard.
It's another very long conversation, really.
The whole resolution thing... That's another one that deserves the "if they don't understand, then they have no business etc.." treatment. Resolution, resosmution! You can get very good quality prints from a 6megapixel point and shoot camera! People are dumb and get swept away with BS marketing numbers.
To break it down a bit and to put it plainly, the more megapixels available, the better your images will look WHEN BLOWING UP THE PHOTO TO LARGER RESOLUTIONS. I capped that because I want to point out that just because you're camera has more megapixels crammed on to the sensor, does not mean that you'll get better quality images. It has to do with pixelation when enlarging a print. More megapixels these days usually means worse quality because unless the sensor is very large, then the manufacturer has to rely on the in camera processing and software, to try and increase the quality of the image by using noise removal algorithms and such. Noise is produced due to a lack of light hitting the sensor while trying to use very high ISO values to artificially increase said light when the scene is dimly lit. Sound confusing?
There are some great articles on the net, and some great books I can recommend. The one book I'd recommend is called "Understanding Exposure" by Brian Peterson. Dealing with the rest of it, even though I don't like the guy very much, on occasion he's right about some things and has decent technical knowledge on this subject matter. Here's a good article by Ken Rockwell:
The Megapixel Myth
Enough of my babbling for now.
Doug
