Zune HD TV Interface Makes It a Media Center For Your Pocket



You’ve already seen the player hands-on; the final reveal for the Zune HD was how well it handled when docked on a high-def TV. As you can see in this video, it blows away anything else in its class.

I was trying to figure out what it was about the Zune HD’s TV interface that I was enjoying so much, and then I realized: Unlike every other device of its size and capacity, this thing is a true portable media center. It’s not as fast as a fully fledged PC running Windows Media Center, but it is zippy as hell for a pocketable, portable player.

Zune HD goes dark when it’s docked, like you see in the gallery. This isn’t like an iPod—once docked, it’s invisible, the power behind what you watch or listen to. The remote is the key. I bopped around, browsing music, scanning for radio stations (that HD has a few meanings, including an HD radio receiver, so you can see the “what’s playing” data and everything) and even watching a short full-screen video on this 60-inch Samsung. The demo Zune only had the one video—I can’t wait to see what it’s like to fill a 32GB one with great movies and TV episodes.

The only noticeable thing missing from the interface was any online connectivity—you can’t download movies to a Zune without a PC anyway, but docked, I am not even sure you can stream music (as you can when carrying a Zune in a Wi-Fi environment). More on that when we review it, naturally.

As we showed you months ago, the player itself takes the PMP user interface to a new level. When you select something, all the screen elements move at different vectors, creating at times a 3D effect, as you can catch up close in the video below. (Pardon the glare, but that’s one hazard—for better or worse, it’s a shiny shiny screen.)

I don’t want to say more—this is not a review, and I won’t be the reviewer when we do pass judgment—but let me say that, as someone who’s never been terribly excited by past Zunes, this one took me pleasantly by surprise.


[Full Zune HD Coverage on Gizmodo]

Entelligence: Stains on the sleeve of my operating system

Entelligence is a column by technology strategist and author Michael Gartenberg, a man whose desire for a delicious cup of coffee and a quality New York bagel is dwarfed only by his passion for tech. In these articles, he’ll explore where our industry is and where it’s going — on both micro and macro levels — with the unique wit and insight only he can provide.

I originally started this column on my take on what an Apple tablet might be (I literally dreamed about it and started to write it down when I woke up). I was really into it, which explains why I didn’t save it as I wrote. I think you can see where this is going.

Like a cartoon character who notices that he’s no longer standing on solid ground and suddenly begins to fall, I reached over to save, but was too late. My trusty XP install suddenly blue screened. Muttering just a few choice words, I rebooted, only to blue screen again. No problem, there’s always “safe mode.” Too bad safe mode blue screened as well. With little hope of getting anything recovered, I gave up, fired up my Mac and started from scratch. It’s not the first time this has happened to me, where for some reason or another I’ve lost work on my computer. I suspect it’s happened to a few of you out there too.

But this latest bad experience changed my thought process from Apple tablets to what’s wrong with the whole PC landscape and today’s operating systems.

Continue reading Entelligence: Stains on the sleeve of my operating system

Filed under:

Entelligence: Stains on the sleeve of my operating system originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:45:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

An Insider On the Apple Tablet

I never fully believed the Apple tablet was real beyond dreams, until I heard these words over my phone: “Hey, it’s [redacted]. I may or may not have sat in some Apple meetings for the tablet.” 

I was driving, and swerved a little bit, even though both hands were on the wheel. Someone honked at me.

“What was that?” 

They repeated themselves.

I switched on Bluetooth and pulled over to the side of the road to hear the story. You see, earlier in the day I’d given my phone number out to someone who sent me a cryptic email wanting to talk Apple. This must have been them. (Later on I verified to a high level of certainty that they were in the position to have access to the information and after talking to them for over an hour, I believe them to the same level of certainty.)

“The device, which I’ve held mock ups of, is going to have a 10 inch screen, and when I saw it looked just like a giant iPhone, with a black back— although that design could change at any time” they said, “with the same black resin back, and the familiar home button.” That’s obvious.

“But it will come in two editions, one with a webcam and one for educational use.”  

Educational use?

They continued to explain the device as something that would sit between an iPod/iPhone and a MacBook, and would cost $700 to $900—”More than twice as much as a netbook,” they said.

To make up for that cost and make the device more than just a big iPod there was, this person claimed, there was talk of making the device act as a secondary screen/touchpad for iMacs and MacBooks, much like a few of the USB screens that have come out in recent months from Chinese companies. Very interesting.





They went on to say that although the project has been going on under various names between four and six years, the first prototype was built around the end of 2008. Adding, “The time to market from first prototype is generally 6-9 months.” That would place the device’s release date in this holiday season, at earliest. (Update: Added, at earliest in light of John Gruber and Jim Dalrymple beliefs that the date is further out, however. Dates are easy to push out.) They then said, “There was a question of what OS the device would run, too.” (Other people I’ve talked to have implied this remains a huge secret. Update: in variation. Obviously, it’ll be OS X.)

My call dropped on some windy road off Skyline Drive. Fucking AT&T.

Later, I asked, was there a code name for the project?

“Yes…[redacted].” 

I thought about it for a second, googled the term, and it all made sense. 

“Don’t publish that name, please,” they requested.

Don’t worry, I won’t.

The Real Cost of Upgrading to Mac OS X Snow Leopard

The good news is that upgrading to OS X Snow Leopard is going to be pretty cheap for people who wisely sprung cash for Leopard. But before you buy, you better check your situation and plan the right move, money-wise.

You may have a few questions: Am I eligible for a cheap upgrade? How about a “free” upgrade? What’s this about family packs? Should I be shopping for a new Mac? Not to worry, Prof. Dealzmodo will help clear things up.

As you can see from this handy chart,, the process of upgrading to a new OS is a little more straightforward for Mac users than it is with Windows. Again, everything starts with meeting the minimum system requirements, which in this case means bye-bye, Power PC—you gotta have an Intel chipset:

• Mac with an Intel Processor
• 1GB of memory
• 5GB of disk space
• DVD drive (though MacBook Airs can “Remote Install” from another computer)

Snow Leopard Pricing
Upgrading from Leopard is the easiest: $29. If you own multiple Macs, a Family pack is just $20 more: $49 for 5 users. Keep in mind, though, that Snow Leopard does not have any activation restrictions, so buying a Family Pack for two or three computers is kind of a waste of money (though using a single-Mac disc on multiple machines is technically illegal). Just remember, if you need tech support on any of your multiple machines during the 90 days that you are covered after buying the OS, you’ll have to have a legit software license.

If you bought a Mac anytime after June 8, you get Snow Leopard even cheaper with the “Up-To-Date” program: $10. Sure, it’s not “free” like Windows 7, but Apple sends you the install disc, and says that the $10 mostly goes to shipping and handling.

The Tiger Catch
Apple has said it themselves:

For Tiger users with an Intel-based Mac, the Mac Box Set includes Mac OS X Snow Leopard, iLife ’09 and iWork ’09 and will be available for a suggested price of $169 (US) and a Family Pack is available for a suggested price of $229 (US).

And retailers are doing a good job of making sure people know:

If you are an Intel Mac user running OS X 10.5 or above (Leopard), then there is no reason why you shouldn’t take advantage of such an inexpensive upgrade to Snow Leopard. However, OS X 10.4 (Tiger) users will be forced to pick up one of the much pricier boxed sets that bundle Snow Leopard, iLife and iWork if they want to make the jump. iWork ’09 is about $55 on Amazon, so you’re getting something for your money, but it may not be what you want.

If you fall into this latter category, I would say it might be time to start looking into a new Mac with Snow Leopard and iLife ’09 pre-installed, rather than putting an additional $169 into a dated machine. This is especially true if you are are still running a PowerPC, which can’t be upgraded at all.

From time to time, Apple abandons users of dated machines and OSes—the rationale is that it keeps them from having the heavily layered code that Windows is always criticized for. Still, if you’re the guy running Tiger on an old PPC machine, you’re definitely feeling like a second-rate citizen in the Apple-verse. It’s time to move up… or move on.

Of course, dropping over $1000 on a MacBook might not be in the cards for everyone right now (although a Mac Mini is a relatively affordable way to get your foot in the door at $600), but it is important to consider that Apple’s Up-To-Date Program offers a Snow Leopard upgrade for $10 on purchases that include qualified refurbished systems. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again—buying refurbished is the smarter move.

[Background Image via Flickr]

How-To: Install Windows 7 and live to tell about it

So you’re thinking about going to Windows 7, eh? Chances are your head is swimming in a sea of TLAs and confusing charts — enough to have the most adamant Microsoft defender reaching for a something with an Option key. Fear not, noble purchaser of legal software. Though XP users have been punished for skipping Vista by not being able to directly upgrade now, the process of backing up your data, formatting and installing Windows, and then restoring your goods again has never been easier — even if you’re on a netbook with less storage than your smartphone. Vista users have even less to worry about. We’ll have our full impressions of the finally finalized OS later this week, but for now let’s journey hand in hand down the gently sloped path of the upgrade process.

Continue reading How-To: Install Windows 7 and live to tell about it

Filed under: , ,

How-To: Install Windows 7 and live to tell about it originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

The Real Cost of Upgrading to Windows 7

The good news is that upgrading to Windows 7 is going to be cheaper than previous Windows releases—but before you buy, you better check your situation and plan the right move, money-wise.

You may have a few questions: Am I eligible for a cheap upgrade? How about a free upgrade? What’s this about family packs? Should I be shopping for a new computer? Not to worry, Prof. Dealzmodo will help clear things up. First, let’s start with the basics.

Is Your PC Ready?
If you have your heart set on upgrading to Windows 7, you need to meet minimum system requirements. For most of us, that ain’t no thang:

• 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
• 1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
• 16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
• DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

If you can’t hit these minimum numbers, I feel for you. It also means you will have to factor new hardware into the total upgrade cost.

To be honest, it’s probably in your best interest to exceed these requirements moving forward. The good news is that there are many PCs out there that would more than satisfy your hardware needs for $500 or less.

The 64-bit Question
Every Windows 7 box, upgrade or full, comes with both a 32-bit and a 64-bit version of the OS, so you have a choice. You should probably brush up on the details of this transition, but in the meantime, just know that it mostly comes down to RAM: If you have 3GB or less, you can run 32-bit, but if you have 4GB or more, you’ll need 64-bit to get the most out of your system.

We recommend the latter, for future coverage, and fortunately, RAM upgrades are damn cheap these days. In fact, you can get 4GB of DDR2 memory for less than $70 pretty easily. And if you are already running a Intel Core 2 Duo processor or better, you don’t need to upgrade the chipset to enjoy the benefits of 64-bit computing. Either way, getting caught up on the CPU won’t run you much more than $100 if you shop around. As I pointed out in this must-read column, it pays to upgrade hardware yourself. Only suckers pay manufacturer’s prices.

Windows 7 Pricing
Standard:
• Windows 7 Home Premium: $120 for upgrade; $200 for full version
• Windows 7 Professional: $200 for upgrade; $300 for full version
• Windows 7 Ultimate: $220 for upgrade; $320 for full version
Family Pack: $149

Anytime Upgrades:
• Windows 7 Starter Edition (you do not want this) to Home Premium: $80
• Home Premium to Professional: $90
• Professional to Ultimate: $140

Free Upgrades:
If you purchase a qualifying PC with Vista installed between now and January 31st you are eligible for a free Windows 7 upgrade. However, this only applies to participating manufacturers and products. Check out Microsoft’s upgrade page for a list of these manufacturers. This also applies to anyone who purchases Vista retail packaged products.

Which Version of Windows 7 Should I Get?
If you are running something other than a Windows OS or an OS that pre-dates Windows XP that means you will have to buy the full retail copy—you’re not eligible for the upgrade that pretty much everyone else is eligible for. If you fall into this slim category, there is a good chance you’ll have to upgrade hardware as well. In that case, strongly consider putting your money into a new PC with Windows 7 already installed—there’s no reason to pay $200 to $300 for the OS alone, when decent computers cost $500.

You can pretty much skip Microsoft’s handy-but-convoluted upgrade chart when determining which path is right for you, though you may want to consult Ed Bott’s easier-to-follow version, originally published on ZDNet:

There are really only three decisions most people will make: Home Premium, Professional or Ultimate, as the other versions are not offered to retail buyers. Most people will get Home Premium—if you are shopping for Professional or Ultimate, even you probably don’t need the upgrade chart, because you know what you’re looking for.

Whatever you do, try to avoid the Anytime Upgrade, the convenient but costly way to jump from, say, Home Premium to Ultimate. If, for example, there is even a slight chance that you might upgrade from Professional to Ultimate, it makes sense to just go for Ultimate right off the bat. An outright upgrade to Windows 7 Ultimate costs $220, but upgrading to Professional then deciding later on to go to Ultimate will cost you $340 total.

What About Netbooks?
In the vast majority of cases, upgrading to Windows 7 from a netbook doesn’t make sound financial sense. If you look at the prices, upgrades can cost more than half what you paid for the netbook in the first place. My recommendation here is to wait on purchasing a netbook until an optimized build of Windows 7 is pre-installed.

Furthermore, if you aren’t prepared to deal with the Starter Edition, don’t buy a netbook running it—go right for Home Premium if possible. The Anytime Upgrade to Home Premium will run you $80—which is probably still a chunk of change when compared to the price of the netbook itself. Seriously, I think that Starter Edition’s sole purpose is to screw netbook users. And if you keep your wallet in a back pocket—yes…they’re screwing you from behind. As far as I’m concerned, the only way it might make some financial sense to purchase an OS upgrade for a netbook is if you run Windows on multiple computers and you decide to purchase a Family Pack license—and you are comfortable dealing with different kinds of OS installations. That will at least allow you to run Home Premium on three machines for about $50 a pop.

Source image from Flickr

10 Machines So Huge They’ll Destroy Your Sense of Scale

With consumer technology companies locked in an endless race to to make the smallest, sleekest gadgets they can, it’s easy to forget the primal joy of seeing mindblowingly huge hardware.

Here are ten machines that are so enormous that they’ll screw with your sense of what’s large, what’s small, and what is truly gigantic—each handily put into scale.

10 Gadgets That Help You Cheat At Summer Sports

The way I see it, there is only one way to overcome your complete lack of athleticism. No, not hard work and dedication—I’m talking about gadgets. These 10 products will help you play like a champ this summer.

Face it, you could barely slip a playing card between your feet and the ground on a vertical jump. Poweriser spring-loaded boots can give you a vertical leap of up to six feet and run strides of up to nine feet. Just imagine what you could do on the basketball court. Check out the product page to see it in action. [Powerisers]
Of all the sports out there, golf is probably the one you need the most help with. Titanium drivers have revolutionized the sport, but the Air Force One driver from PowerBilt takes things a step further with compressed nitrogen. Filling the clubhead with nitrogen at 150 psi allows you to reduce the thickness of the face and increase the size of the sweet spot—and increased flex in the clubface means greater distance. Surprisingly, this club even meets USGA guidelines. [PowerBilt via Link]
When it comes right down to it, putting is really at the core of a good golf game. The Argon Laser Putter helps give you an edge in that area with a three-laser targeting system. [Argon Putter via Link]
The Vector O Bat blends the finest in wiffle technology with space age alloys to generate better aerodynamics, faster bat speed and greater distance. [Reebok via Link]
Designed for the three big football leagues (England’s Premier League, Spain’s La Liga, and Italy’s Serie A), Nike’s T90 Ascente is the most advanced football $140 can buy. The secret is in a three-layer construction that basically turns the entire ball into a sweet spot. [Nike via Link]
Wooldand creatures won’t know what killed them when you are sporting a TAC-15 crossbow. It mounts directly onto an AR-15 rifle, allowing you to switch between both weapons quickly and easily. [PSE via Link]
Until these high tech bodysuits like the LZR Racer are officially banned from major swimming competitions starting next year, athletes are going to continue to break world records at an alarming rate. [Speedo]
I don’t see a Tour de France in your future, so why work so hard with all that pedaling? The Sanyo Enloop carbon fiber electric bike handles that problem for you and can keep you going for up to 62 miles on a single 3.5 hour charge. [Sanyo via Link]
Spend less time fishing and more time getting drunk with this radio controlled chum boat. Not only does it drop feed and a bait hook up to 950 feet away, it also has a built-in fish finder that relays information to your handheld remote. [Pro Idee via Link]
Team building my ass—show your co-workers who is really the boss on your next paintball excursion by building a turret. This beauty can mow down your enemies with a firing rate of 34 balls per second. It can even be controlled with a HUD from up to half a mile away. Hit the following link for the complete instructions on how to build one yourself. [Inventgeek]

Giz Explains: How Push Works

Push. It’s not just a verb that sends people careening down a flight of stairs. It’s also not just for guys in suits diddling on BlackBerrys. You hear it featured on new iPhone apps every week. So, what is it?

Well, push describes a lot of things. Push is simply an action. Versus, say, pulling. Maybe that’s horribly abstract, so try this: If information shows up on your phone or neural implant or messaging program without you (or your wares) asking for it—that’s push. The info is pushed to you, versus you pulling it from the source. There are tons of ways push can be (and is) used.

Email’s a pretty good starting point for grasping the difference between push and the other stuff. You probably know good ol’ POP3—you log into your mail server and pull down new messages. Maybe it’s on a frequent schedule, so it feels automatic, even instant, but you’re still reaching out to the mail server every time to check and see if there’s new mail to download.

IMAP is a little fancier than POP, where all of your folders and email are the same on all of your computers, phones and other gadgets, and any change you make on one shows up on the other, since it’s all happening on a remote server somewhere. But with the standard setup, it’s still the same deal—your mail program has to log in, see what’s new, and pull it down. IMAP does have a pretty neat trick though, an optional feature called IMAP IDLE, that does push pretty well—it’s what the Palm Pre uses for Gmail, for instance. Essentially, with IMAP IDLE, the mail server can tell whatever mail app that you’ve got new messages waiting, without you (or your app) hammering the refresh button over and over. When the app knows there’s new messages, it connects and pulls them down, so it gives you just about the speed of push, without matching the precise mechanism.

While different systems do things differently (obvs), what true push services have in common is that they generally insert a middleman between you and the information source.

RIM’s setup for the BlackBerry is probably the most sophisticated. When your BlackBerry registers with the carrier (which has to support BlackBerry), the details are handed to RIM’s network operating center, so the NOC knows where to send your mail. The NOC watches your mail server, keeps tabs on the phone’s location, and pushes email through to your phone whenever you get new stuff.

What makes it push is that your phone’s not actually polling a server for new messages to pull—it only receives them when they hit your inbox, and are then pushed to your phone by RIM’s servers. This means you save a lot of battery life that’d be wasted by making the phone constantly hit the servers for updates. The flipside is that when RIM’s servers blow up, you don’t get email, since it’s all routed through their system—hence the other panic that grips dudes in suits once every few months lately.

The other biggie is Microsoft, who has Direct Push, part of Exchange’s ActiveSync. It’s architected a little bit differently, so it doesn’t need the precise kind of data about where your phone is that RIM’s NOCs do: The phone or whatever you’ve got sends an HTTPS with a long lifespan to the Exchange server—if new mail arrives before it dies, the Exchange tells your device there’s new stuff, so it should start a sync. After it syncs, the device sends out another long HTTPS request, starting it all over again.

Apple’s weak-sauce substitute for multitasking works pretty similarly: The developer has something its wants to send an iPhone, when its application isn’t actually running, like an IM. It sends the notification to Apple’s push servers, which send the notification to the phone through a “persistent IP connection” the phone maintains with the servers. This connection, which is only maintained when push notifications are turned on, is needed to locate the phone, but still doesn’t draw as much power as constantly pinging the mail server.

Of course, those aren’t the only push systems around, and it’s only getting more and more important as stuff gets shifted to the cloud. We haven’t mentioned Android and Google Chrome, but both utilize push (or will) in different ways. Suffice it to say, Google Sync will soon be a major player in this game. But basically, all kinds of different data can be pushed—calendars, contacts, browser data, hell, even IM is a kind of push—and they all work more or less the same broad way. Just don’t ask us why there isn’t push Gmail on the iPhone yet.

Still something you wanna know? Send questions about pushing, shoving and pancake massacres to tips@gizmodo.com, with “Giz Explains” in the subject line.

The 3 DSLR Lenses You Need (and 2 More You’ll Crave)

This goes out to people who bought or want an entry-level DSLR, and wonder what’s the deal with interchangeable lenses. You really gonna buy that extra glass? It’s a beginner’s guide to growing as a photographer, preferably without going broke.

It doesn’t matter what brand of camera you bought—if it’s an entry-level DSLR, it was offered to you with an 18-55mm kit lens. I hope you took them up on that offer because no matter what you bought, that kit lens comes cheap, and is well worth it. Yes, of the five lenses covered here, that kit lens is numero uno.

KIT LENS
Like most bundle pricing, it’s cheaper than buying the camera body and lens separately, and most experts agree that an 18-55mm is actually the perfect lens for most immediate photographic needs, with both a decent wide angle plus the ability to zoom in on far away objects. In fact, if you take a look at the four shots below—all taken by me with kit lenses on basic DSLRs—you can see a foreshadowing of the four other lenses in this briefing—telephoto, wide-angle, portrait and macro:

But if you read Gizmodo enough, you know that we’ve made the case that lenses, and not the cameras themselves, account most for great pictures. Photography is an optics game first and foremost, and there’s a point at which that kit lens can’t achieve shots that your heart and soul tell you are achievable. There’s nothing wrong with your camera—seriously, there’s nothing wrong with it. You just need to get some more lenses.

In order to run this story I called some experts at Canon, Nikon and Sigma, which makes discounted lenses for most DSLRs. I could have called experts at [insert your favorite non-Canon or Nikon camera brand here] but early on, the advice was consistent and clear: Anyone who is really taking an interest in their camera should invest in a telephoto zoom next, followed by a fast “normal” lens, which you might call a portrait lens.

LENS LABELING
In the interest of speed, I can’t talk about lens anatomy, but there are some key attributes you need to know to read all lens retail listings: focal length and aperture.

In most cases, the lens categories here differ by the focal length, that is, how close a subject appears, indicated in millimeters. The human-eye equivalent is between 30mm and 50mm. A telephoto lens, which gets up close to things that are far away, can be as long as 500mm. A wide-angle lens, which makes close-up objects appear farther away, can be 10mm—still less if you want the bulbous fisheye look. A “zoom” lens simply means that it has a variable focal length—for instance, your kit lens, which can hit any length from 18mm to 55mm.

Because entry-level cameras have smaller (APS-C) sensors than professional APS) full-frame 35mm cameras, everybody makes two sets of lenses. Typically all lenses work on beginner cameras, but beginner lenses don’t work on pro cameras. If you stick with beginner lenses (denoted Nikon DX, Canon EF-S, Sony DT, Pentax DA, Sigma DC and Tamron Di II), you won’t have to stress, but if you want to buy a pro lens, or have some lying around, bear in mind that you need to multiply the focal length by 1.5 or so to get the equivalent focal length for your camera. A 50mm pro lens is really a 75mm lens on your beginner’s model. Why am I telling you this? Because there are new and used pro-level lenses out there for really good prices.

In one case below, what sets the lens apart is its large aperture. The aperture is the hole that lets in the light, and it’s measured by the f-stop. A wider aperture means more light comes in, and you have a better chance of getting nice shots indoors, in dimmer settings. A narrower aperture lets in less light. The trade-off is that a wide aperture can’t focus on as many things that are at different distances—it is said to have a “shallow depth of field.” Your main subject is clear, but the background is blurry—artistic in many cases, annoying in some. When you narrow the aperture, you can crisply resolve more elements, but only if there’s enough light. The wide aperture of a “fast” lens can always be narrowed, but there’s no way for a “slow” lens with a narrower aperture to bring in more light.

As if that wasn’t tricky, check this out: The f-stop is a fraction, and the number you refer to is on the bottom, so if it’s low (f/1.4), the aperture is wide, and if it’s high (f/6.0), the aperture is narrow. Got it? Zoom lenses at beginner prices tend to have variable f-stops, apertures that get narrower, and in need of more light, as you zoom in.

TELEPHOTO ZOOM
Lenses in many ways are about reach, about bringing faraway subjects closer to your camera’s sensor. “The low-end customer, who may take out their DSLR only occasionally, says, ‘I want to shoot a picture of the moon, or animals at the zoo, or kids playing soccer,'” says Dave Metz, a lens specialist at Sigma. Even when that kit lens is cranked to the max, it’s only giving you a 55mm focal length, which is why most DSLR makers have a very well-priced 55-200mm lens waiting at the ready. Prices range from $120 to $250, and it’s usually the easiest purchase to make.


Credits: Lindsay Silverman – Nikon; me with Nikon; Robert O’Toole – Sigma; Stephen Lang – Sigma

Another telephoto zoom lens you’ll see is the 18-200mm, which can cost anywhere from $350 to $600. That’s a hefty premium to pay just so you don’t have to schlep around two lenses, and generally speaking, the broader the focal length range, the more corners are being cut in performance. That lens is a pass.

If you are feeling particularly far out, both Metz and Nikon’s camera marketing guru Steve Heiner suggest a 70-300mm lens. Sigma’s model sells for under $200, Nikon’s most recent model, with built-in image stabilizing, is just over $500, and there are 70-300mm lenses for everyone else ranging from $130 to $850, all with variable f-stops of either f/4.0-5.6 or f/4.5-5.6. Better yet, these lenses are spec’d for pro-grade full-frame cameras, so they’re exceptionally zoomy on your beginner’s camera, more like 105-450mm. Hey, don’t think about it too much, just enjoy it.

NORMAL (AKA PORTRAIT)
As much traction as you’ll get from a zoom lens, it doesn’t really teach you much, except maybe how to compose without cropping. I personally learned a hell of a lot more about photography when I started playing with f/1.8 50mm lenses. This is called a “normal” lens because, says Heiner, “It was all you could get on a camera in the ’50s and ’60s.” In fact, he jokes that even though younger people are snapping up this relatively cheap lens ($100 to $150), he and his ilk “couldn’t wait to get away from it” when zoom lenses started hitting the market.

What does it do? As a “fast” lens, it can shoot really well in low light. Keep the aperture wide, get up in your subject’s grill, and start clicking. You’ll see parts of their face sharply resolved while other parts are softly blurred. Tighten the aperture a tad, and your subject’s whole head is clear while the backdrop is soft and peaceful, even if it’s a Manhattan street corner at rush hour. What doesn’t it do? It doesn’t zoom, and because it’s usually rated for pro cameras, it’s about the equivalent of 75mm on an entry-level DSLR—which is roughly the preferred focal length for portrait shooting—so you often have to step back to get a decent shot.


Credits: Me with Canon; Joe DiMaggio – Sigma; Joe DiMaggio – Sigma; Lindsay Silverman – Nikon

Alternatives to the cheap f/1.8 lens are an even faster one, f/1.4 ($300 to $500), or a 30mm or 35mm that gives entry-level cameras more of a “normal”—what your eye can see—perspective.

At this point, in addition to the original cost of your camera, you’ve spent less than $500, and you’ve added immeasurable functionality and artistic wiggle room. You can stop here, and you won’t be judged. But, if you like, I can tell you about two more lenses that might rock your casbah.

ULTRA-WIDE ANGLE ZOOM
That kit lens brings you down to 18mm, which is enough for you to stand in a corner of a room and shoot pretty much anything going on in that room. But what if you’re not in the corner? The same twist of fate that makes pro-level telephoto lenses even more zoomy on your entry-level DSLR makes wide angles trickier—or at least more expensive—to attain.

Why is this? Film is flat, so light can come in at any angle, and the film will mostly record it. But camera sensor pixels are concave, and don’t do well with light coming in from the side. Think of the pixels as little water glasses, says Sigma’s Dave Metz. “You can fill them up with water by pouring it in from above, but try shooting it in from the side with a garden hose, and it’s going to go all over the place.” A telephoto by definition is pulling in light from directly in front of it, whereas a wide angle by definition is bringing in light from the sides, too. Hence the trouble, and the added expense.

But if you have the means, it’s the consensus of my experts that you should pick yourself up an ultra-wide-angle zoom lens (10-24mm, 10-22mm or 10-20mm). Just be very careful that it’s one built specifically for entry-level DSLRs, with the arcane designations I mentioned in the “Lens Labeling” section. Discounted on Amazon, Nikon’s is selling for $809 while Canon’s is around $730. Tamron and Sigma make them for Canon and Nikon for just under $500.


Credits: Stephen Lang – Sigma; David FitzSimmons – Sigma; Carol Polich – Sigma; Joe DiMaggio – Sigma

And the aesthetic pay off? As Metz tells it, “I am sure you’ve seen a beautiful mountain scene; in the foreground there’s beautiful little flowers. Because they’re so close, they appear out of perspective. You effectively enlarge the flowers.” It’s also, as he points out, the best way to make sure that all the uncles and aunts are included in the family portrait you take at the Christmas dinner table.

MACRO
The final stop on our survey of lens-topia is the macro—or big hairy bug—lens. “When I try to show people about macro photography, they say ‘What is that?'” says Lisette Ranga, a Canon camera marketing specialist, “but when they look through the viewfinder, and see how close you can get, they get it.” While I don’t understand why people like taking pictures of bugs and flowers so much, I am a victim of the chronic urge to do so. Though some are 50mm or thereabouts, many macros are telephoto lenses. The ideal, it seems, is to shoot stuff up close that you wouldn’t even want to get near—he who snaps the most snakes and scorpions wins.


Credits: Canon 60mm Macro sample; Canon 60mm Macro sample; David FitzSimmons – Sigma; Lindsay Silverman – Nikon

So what do you look for? Typically, macro lenses have a fixed aperture of f/2.8 (sometimes f/2.5). Sigma has five lenses, ranging from 50mm ($300) to 180mm ($900), all fixed, plus a few zooms such as the one I personally want to try out, the 24-70mm ($570, compared to well over $1,000 for the equivalent Canon or Nikon). What’s cool is that when you’re not photographing scorpions (or stamps or coins or documents), you can use these for portraits and other “normal” shooting, but with such sharp resolve that some even recommend a bit of digital softening.

So you see, adding those final two lenses more than doubles your investment, and for a diminished payoff. That’s what you would buy next, but for most of you, it’s not what you should be buying.

IMAGE STABILIZATION, LENS MOUNTS AND YOUR DADDY’S LENS COLLECTION
Though some readers probably gave up on this story a long time ago, I have made every attempt to keep it clear and moving. In doing so, I skipped over lots of hot topics, including image stabilization and lens compatibility.

Canon and Nikon currently promote the hell out of image stabilizing lenses, in large part because their cameras do not have in-camera image stabilization like Sony, Pentax and Olympus. While image stabilization does tend to matter, its location doesn’t seem to matter as much. The consensus on the internet is that it’s a drag to have to buy IS in lenses over and over, and from what I’ve seen, there is a clear added cost when buying lenses a la carte. Nevertheless, there’s a premium for buying Nikon and Canon because they are consistently the best reviewed and the biggest sellers, so there’s no right or wrong. It’s just something to look for when buying lenses, and to discuss with your favorite camera nerds.

The main reason Canon and Nikon don’t have IS in their cameras is that the camera technologies pre-date the digital revolution, and it was harder to do with film. The flipside is this: Older film-based lenses from Canon and Nikon work on newer Canon and Nikon digital cameras. For Canon, it’s the EF standard, which dates back to 1987. If the lens says EF on it, it will work. If it says EF-S, it was specifically made for entry-level DSLRs, and won’t work on pricier pro models. If you put an EF lens on a camera that typically takes EF-S lenses, remember to multiply by 1.6 to figure out the real focal length.

For Nikon, it’s a tad weirder: Any F-mount lens dating back to 1959 will fit on the thing, but only the lenses labeled AF-S will definitely work with D40/D60/D90/D3000/D5000 class of entry-level DSLRs. If the lens doesn’t say “DX” on it, multiply the focal length by 1.5 to see what it really is. If your dad hands you a bag of Nikon lenses, accept them graciously, and try them all out, but be ready for weird results, or at the very least, a sudden lack of autofocus and auto metering.

LENS QUALITY
I want to leave you with one final bone of contention—the quality of the lenses. I recognize that I have made many suggestions that seem like go-out-and-buy-’em recommendations. I do think that shopping for new lenses on a tight budget is a good way to expand as a photographer, but this is not a “buyer’s guide.”

Many photography enthusiasts believe buying a cheap lens to attach to your camera would be like buying a used prophylactic to… well, I’ll spare you the imagery. But the point is, there is surely a reason why third-party ultra-wide-angle zoom lenses cost half as much as big name versions, just as there is surely a reason why Canon’s 50mm f/1.4 costs nearly four times as much as its 50mm f/1.8. There are real differences in lenses, and I’m happy to invite you to discuss them below.