Looking to buy an entry level DSLR, tips? [Archive]

vcool

12-16-2009, 12:15 AM

I am sure you are all tired of seeings these "best camera" threads, but I tried searching and I couldn't find any pre-existing thread.

I am thinking of getting an entry level DSLR and I did some research, and I inclined towards a Nikon D60 if I can find one, or a D5000. I am not really sure about the Canons, they seem to have nice crisp photos but the quality deteriorates quicker at higher ISO levels.

I guess in the end it doesn't really matter what you take, provided they are at the same level. It's more of an investment in future if you plan on getting more lenses.

Anyway, to sum it all up - I think of getting a D60 or a D5000, but I'd like to hear some Canon people talk. I also live in the Toronto area, and if someone knows a place with nice prices for cameras, I'd love to hear it. :D

I will probably be taking landscape pictures most of the time, and macro shots of course.

Sorry if I don't make much sense, it's 2 am and I didn't get any sleep last night. :/

Oh I should mention that I couldn't find the D60 anywhere, it's sold out all over the place. Online I checked newegg.ca but it doesn't have it, amazon doesn't have it either, but there are plenty at eBay. But on eBay the D5000 cost as much as the D60 and the only reason I was thinking of getting the D60 instead is because I though I could get an additional lense at the cost of the price difference. (I coordinated my prices with Blacks, the photography store. The D5000 costs ~750 and the D60 ~450.) Is eBay an appropriate site to buy expensive electronics though? I bought a USB mic over eBay, but it was 70 bucks, not 700.

Gannon

12-16-2009, 12:17 AM

vcool

12-16-2009, 12:25 AM

I would recommend spending the couple extra hundred bucks and just getting the D80 or D90. They are easy to use and learn, plenty of varieties of lenses and so on.

My main concern when i was looking for my first DSLR was speed, color, and the type of memory card required. Compact flashes are a pain in the ass in my opinion. Not many things are compatible with them. So the Nikons SD cards were great. Clear crisp color while taking multiple shots were a definite plus.

Hey, thanks for a quick response.

Yeah I looked at the D90s but they seem to be more on the expensive side. Bestbuy gets you a Canon T1i with a kit lense and an additional 55-200 (I think) mm lens for ~1100 while the D90 costs slightly more with just the kit lense.

Also, according to dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5000/page28.asp), the picture quality difference between the D5000 and D90 is really minimal, almost indistinguishable.

Ahrkey

12-16-2009, 12:46 AM

Also, according to dpreview.com, the picture quality difference between the D5000 and D90 is really minimal, almost indistinguishable.

If they got the same sensor this might be true. Also, that test is made in daylight simulation. Ie. ISO 200 and perfect lighting.
There could be differences when lightning conditions are less than perfect and a higher ISO number is needed.
I compared my D60 with a friend's D90. The D90 was capable of taking higher iso's with less grain which means a better picture.

If you don't need a camera right now I'd save up for a D90.

I know nothing about Canons... except that the 5D Mark II rocks.

edit: oh and don't forget about used cameras... you can get a full sensor house for the price of a new DX house.

hawken

12-16-2009, 01:15 AM

nikon and canon is like mac and pc, sega and nintendo!

Personally I'm a nikon man. I'd go with one that does nice video and has a good weight to it. Nothing worse than a light camera for giving you crap shots.

also, eBay is fine for this kind of stuff.

The D60 is a bit flimsy and tiny for my liking - also it doesn't shoot HD video, which one day you will be kicking yourself over.
Also it only goes up to 3200 iso, even my 9 year old D1 can do that. The higher the iso, the more often you can take pictures like this: (no flash)

http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Digital-SLR/25466-Nikon-D3S/Photography/iso_punkers.jpg

I agree, save up for the D90. The D60 is so lacklustre in features you'll soon be kicking yourself that you wasted your money on such a dog egg.

The D90 can go up to 6400 iso and shoots 24fps HD video. Thats a lot of difference for $200 extra

Rick Stirling

12-16-2009, 02:14 AM

If I was buying these days I'd get the D90, however the D60 I have is great, even with the stock lenses. In fact I'd be more inclined to buy a 50mm prime lens for my D60 before I upgraded the body.

Seaseme

12-16-2009, 02:22 AM

I love my D60. The low ISO blows, as do a few other things. But for the price I've really enjoyed it. My next camera will be the d90 I believe. I want that HD video. The d60 was a good model to start with for me. Shrug. In retrospective, I should have saved another $200 and went with the D90. Live and learn.

poopinmymouth

12-16-2009, 05:07 AM

It's actually the reverse. Nikon is objectionably worse at high ISO than the canon counterparts, other than the d700 and d3, which are (expensive) only marginally better than their canon counterparts. All entry level cameras, the canon's have more dynamic range and less noise at high isos. That said, the d90 is supposed to be good.

I will recommend against most people's suggestions, but since I'm very heavily into both taking photos often and studying gear and tech, I think my opinion should count more. :-)

Get a used Canon 20D with a 28mm 2.8, and a 50mm 1.8 for around 500 USD. It will provide awesome image quality, really help you learn the basics of photography, and it's a higher end camera than entry level, but it's cheap because it's old. It's still a great camera though.

Any problems you have with your images as a beginner are 99% because of your lack of skill, and 1% lack of better equipment. And since you can practice on almost any camera with manual controls, go cheap, learn the craft, then upgrade when you are sure where you need it. (using the universal you, not aiming this at a particular person)

poopinmymouth

12-16-2009, 05:09 AM

Also the 28mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8 stopped down to 2.8 are so much sharper than any kit lens for any camera it's a stupid exercise in futility to even attempt the comparison.

disanski

12-16-2009, 05:40 AM

How about the Olympus E520 SLR. Exactly what you are looking for entry level on a very very reasonable price.
I got the 510 like 2 years ago and I am very happy with it.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/564508-REG/Olympus_262086_E_520_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

I would get this one instead of something a bit better but second hand at least you have the warranty. No question that would not be as good as Canon or Nikon but for the price it is a great deal and as it was already said at the beginning most of the issues would be caused from not enough knowledge( as in my case) then to bad equipment. This one also comes with another set of lens 40-150 I could not find it right now but the price is still very low :)

Lamont

12-16-2009, 06:01 AM

I second the 28mm/50mm primes. Just having those in your bag will keep you so versitile on day to day shooting. And they are easy to carry around. The kit lens looses so much detail it's not even funny, well it is kinda funny, but not ha-ha funny. And when you get these on a full frame DSLR, on man, it's like a whole new world.

**Poop, my kid keeps saying "Look, there's that green ugly face man." every time he see's your avatar.

Quokimbo

12-16-2009, 06:12 AM

I have a Nikon D50. I bought it a while back, and still love it! I have a few kits for it, and it shoots great photos. I really want to upgrade to a Nikon that shoots HD video. That would be sweet.

Nikon FTW! :) Can not help with which one though. :P

poopinmymouth

12-16-2009, 08:26 AM

Also keep in mind that if you do want to get serious about photography, you are buying into a system, and no one has the lenses that Canon and Nikon do. If you're ok with getting a body and a kit lens and shooting with that forever, sure go any brand, but if you imagine yourself slowly adding lenses as you get more into it, don't look at anything but Canon and Nikon. I personally would switch to Canon from Nikon even if I'd started Nikon because 35mm is my most used lens, and the canon 35mmL blows all other 35mm lenses out of the water (in dslrs). Pricey, but worth it in my opinion. You might find that the lens for you is a 100-400mm for birding or airshows, and Olympus/Panasonic/Sony just don't have the lenses like that, that Canon/Nikon do. Same with Fisheye's, and super wide aperture prime lenses.

doc rob

12-16-2009, 08:47 AM

I just bought a Canon T1i (500D overseas) and am very happy with it. It's a solid starter DSLR and shoots HD Video. I'm used to the Canon UI, which is why I went that way. I'm going to pick up one of these cheap but solid 50mm lenses (effectively 80mm on the smaller sensor in the T1i) link. After that I will be set for what I'm going to use it for (mostly shots of the family), all for under $600 total.

Joshua Stubbles

12-16-2009, 11:07 AM

I guess it depends on how in-depth into photography you want to get, too. My D40 does everything I need (pics for remembrance, texture photos). If you want to get more professional, I'd take poops advice for sure.

vcool

12-16-2009, 12:47 PM

Wow guys, thanks for so much input! :D

Poop, you're right about inexperience. I have actually wanted an SLR for a long time but I convinced myself that it's just me being bad and not the camera. Even now I am not 100% sure I really need one, so in the end I might not end up getting anything at all haha.

Massive thanks to all for noting the difference in sharpness for kit/primes. I had no clue, and I just stumbled across this (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=26,1&fullscreen=true&av=5,5&fl=50,55&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F2) and you're all right - the kit lens aren't sharp at all when compared to primes.

I have a question about this actually, it seems there are plenty of 50mm primes but I can't seem to find 28mm's at all. I think I just misunderstood what you meant, me being a newbie and all.

Vassago brought up a good point. I don't plan (not yet at least) to be a photo-pro. I don't know where I will end up in the future, though. I am majoring in astrophysics and of course staring at stars is what I will commonly do. Later on I am required to take a course in practical astronomy, and I skimmed over some of the material of last year's class and it seems they learn a lot of optics and a bit of general photography. So who knows, maybe some day I'll be given the spark of PhotoPro wannabe-ism.

EDIT: I should add that now I am considering getting a body-only of whatever camera I choose in the end, and then getting the primes. But this made me remember that D40/D60/D5000 require an Autofocus in the lens (I think) so it kinda limits the lens choice.

poopinmymouth

12-16-2009, 12:54 PM

Oops, price went up, it's 250 bux, but it's really a sharp lens, even wide open: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12096-GREY/Canon_2505A002_Wide_Angle_EF_28mm.html

The thing with less expensive cameras is that they are crop sensors, meaning they don't see the full projected circle, so you have to multiply a lens mm focal length by 1.6 (canon) 1.5 (nikon) or 2x (olympus). 50mm is so popular because the lenses are easy to make very quality, they don't have to contort the light much like shorter or longer length lenses, AND (this is the important bit) the way they show angles, field of view, and size relationships is how the human eye perceives things. 50mm lens images just "look" right to us, whereas wider tends to look unnatural, and longer tends to look flattened. But to get a 50mm equivalent on these cheaper crop bodies, you need a 28-30mm. (other than olympus where you need a 24mm).

You don't need to "go pro" to do a good purchase. It's basically if you want to be serious at all besides just a quality jump in image quality from a point/shoot. Mid level canon and nikons, like the 20d and 40d I recommended, will give you a ton of control to learn photography, as well as upgradability. The e520 is a great camera, but it's more limited in terms of how much you can grow. You wouldn't keep a canon 20d or 40d if you went pro (most likely not anyway) but you would keep most of your lenses whn moving to a more pro body. Right now the only 3 systems with full frame options to move up to are Canon, Nikon and Sony.

disanski

12-16-2009, 01:28 PM

Absolutely agree that with the Olympus that I got I am very limited :), I would only recommend it for it's great price and just for the beginning of the trip. Even now when sometimes I think of upgrade I wish I got something else so I don't have to get everything from the beginning. :)

poopinmymouth

12-16-2009, 01:49 PM

also, rather than figure out your body first, figure out your budget, and try to narrow your shooting goals, and try to cram as much usable equipment into that. If you spend your whole budget on a body and get a crap kit lens, you're way behind the guy who buys a body 1-2 generations old and nice lenses

vcool

12-18-2009, 12:28 AM

A bit of a bump, and once again when I'm cold and tired.

I've been looking at more and more stuff, and tbh I find it impossible to decide. All of the camera are so appealing, but the cons sound bad, and in the end I don't really know what I want. It's like that riddle Liebnitz came up with, about a perfectly rational god and space uniformity. If space (and time, although the concept of spacetime wasn't thought of yet in Liebnitz's time) is truly uniform, then for a perfectly rational god there is no reason to create a universe here or there - it's all the same so how can he decide?

I decided to simply go and touch and hold things, and see what fits best and what I like best. I'm gonna do that tomorrow, after I bomb my last final. But the general consensus I've decided upon is getting a body-only and getting those 50mm primes that sell for ~150 uni-gel for whatever brand I end up getting.

The only problem I see with this is that if I understand correctly, I won't be able to take macro shots properly with only a 50mm, so having the kit lens doesn't seem such a bad thing.

The last question for tonight - do you guys have any recommendations for books or the like to get to know the basics of photography? Or do you guys think it's better to discover everything by myself by means of trail and error and experimenting? I guess I could find a pretty good online guide but I hate reading text on monitors, besides I can always take the book with me to wherever I go.

disanski

12-18-2009, 02:18 AM

Good idea. I went to the store and hold every camera in my hand to see how it feels. Makes big difference from just looking at it on the screen, then again I don't know how important that could be because that might lead you to one camera just because it feels more comfortable and that could just make you even more confused. I would be actually interested as well if anybody recommend a good book for beginners.

poopinmymouth

12-18-2009, 05:17 AM

Absolutely buy "Understanding Exposure" Single best photography book hands down.

2nd, you can get cheap extension tubes that allow you to focus closer with your same lens for pseudo Macro. I have the canon brand one which is a little more expensive, but there are chinese ebay ones for super cheap. It goes between your lens and the camera and has no glass in it. All it changes is how close you can focus. This photo uses a normal 85mm lens with a 25mm extension tube.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3532/3204084124_51fc98157d_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_chompers/3204084124/)

JO420

12-18-2009, 05:36 AM

I personally love my Pentax K200,wonderful DSLR camera. Its not the mainstream choice for people but it has a few really good advantages over Nikons and Canons.

- Sturdy stainless steel frame which resists alot of wear and tear.

-Weather sealed,i can take pictures in all sorts of weather conditions with good results.

- Double A batteries, seemed like a bad idea but since i travel often i sometimes need replacement betteries and in 5 minutes i can have more juice with a visit to a local kiosk.

- Cheap,cheap lens. Pentax cameras have mounts which allow you to buy and use lens from older non DSLR pentax cameras. You can go on ebay and find tons of cheap older lenses which work as well as newer ones. No auto focus though.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3250/3282227641_5630663143.jpg

All in all a wonderful Camera to begin shooting with as an amateur DSLR user.

thomasp

12-18-2009, 06:23 AM

pentax's lens prices have shot through the roof within this year tho. lenses i bought in early 2009 are now almost double the price, sheesh. second the recommendation to look at this brand tho since there's a nice selection of quality lenses out there for it and plenty of compatible thirdparty-ones to choose from as well, old and new, all shapes and sizes. i like the wide-angle pancake's the most. crisp images and the lighter and smaller, the better for me.

i'd recommend a look at the K-x which seems to get good reviews for image quality. i've got the K-7 personally tho but that's a different league of camera body and not beginner-friendly.

vcool

12-19-2009, 02:09 AM

Ha, Poop, I didn't think this would happen, but it seems that I might actually end up getting a 20D. There's a used one at B&H, and I am going to be in NY for about 10 hours so I might pop-in and if the condition is good enough I'll get it.

I went to the store today, to hold stuff, and I almost bought a D90 with some accessories for about 1500. I know that for a pro photographer that isn't much of a price, but being a novice and all it really hurt to spend so much money on something which I might not end up using as often as I want to right now. So then I really contemplated ditching everything and getting a good ol' Rebel XSi for about 600. I didn't, though, since I knew I was going to be in NY anyways, and the prices are cheaper there.

When I got home I accidentally stumbled across Ken Rockwell's XSi review, and right in the intro he says that if you can - get the 20D or 30D since they are just better at a lower pixel count. I then tried B&H for 30D in the used department (I looked for 20Ds when you first mentioned them, but only at amazon and ebay, but I haven't tried B&H) and found the 20D for 270 dollars body only. And I just gave up. Coupled with the two primes you guys recommended, the 50mm and the 28mm, the total goes to 600 dollars - in CDN dollars pretty much exactly the amount the XSi costs.

I think I am finally done with this guys. Thanks to all who helped, I'll be having more questions later on when I actually try taking pictures. :D

I just sincerely hope that Murphy's laws don't come tumbling after me and the camera won't be there, or maybe I won't have time to find the store. Since Murphy was right about just about everything that has happening to me in the last days, I think the odds are high. But I hope.

EDIT: oh, and I'll have to find Compactflash to PCMCA (or w/e it's called) convertor for my laptop which I am taking with me.

Well, what do you fucking know...it's closed on Saturdays....

EarthQuake

12-21-2009, 11:34 PM

I'm looking into a used canon 350D(rebel XT), recommendations on lenses? I'm looking for something in the $100-150 range with IS, i dont know a whole lot about lenses, so is it possible to get something at all decent?

Lamont

12-21-2009, 11:39 PM

It would probably be the newer stock EF-S lenses that have IS on them. My personal take on IS is that it messes with my focus speed and I hate that when time is not on my side (never is).

The two lenses Poop had mentioned are good bits of glass to start out with.

poopinmymouth

12-22-2009, 05:15 AM

I think it's possible to get one of the kit lenses that has IS for around 100, no idea how good they are though. that's like the extreme low limit for lenses, only a handful fall into that price category. The only lens with good optical quality in that range is the 50mm 1.8

danr

12-22-2009, 05:53 AM

I picked up a canon 28-135 IS for dirt cheap on ebay - it was a refurb, but seemed perfectly okay. Not the greatest lens in the world but was really useful for me.

SyedS

12-22-2009, 10:22 AM

I have a Rebel XS and it works great. I got mine from Henry's and guess what, they are having a sale for it right now :D

http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ItemsDisplay?storeId=10001&storeId=10001&mrktInitiativeId=3946&departmentId=10404&mrktInitName=Canon+Rebel+XS_091221&categoryId=10429&itemID=243199&catalogId=10001&ddkey=DisplayInitiative

If your wondering about the quality of the camera, check it my bro's flickr account (his photography isn't amazing or anything since he just started a 3 months ago)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wajahatsyed

EarthQuake

12-22-2009, 01:57 PM

Alright, my main reason for wanting IS is that i dont have the steadiest of hands, so coming from only really using compact point and shoot cameras it seems like a must. However is it just not really as a big of a deal with a decent SLR? I really dont know shit about lenses

JordanW

12-22-2009, 02:02 PM

Image stabilization is always nice to have even on a decent SLR.

poopinmymouth

12-22-2009, 02:55 PM

Keep in mind that IS only gives you around 3 stops, meaning if you could take an unblurry image hand held at 1/60, IS would let you go down 1/30, 1/15, 1/8. However if it's a cheap as shit kit lens, it might start at 3.5, and 1.8 is around 2 stops faster than that.

IS is nice, but I've never owned any lenses with it. I prefer large aperture prime lenses that just let in my light. Keep in mind that IS only steadies your hands, it does nothing for fast moving subjects. At 1/8, any movement at all will show up as blurriness.

If you really want IS, go with Sony bodies, which have IS built into the body, so any lens you get will automatically have it. Canon and Nikon you have to pay extra for lenses with it built in.

EarthQuake

12-22-2009, 04:22 PM

Ben, can you explain that to me again but just assume i have no clue what you're talking about, what "stops" are and the relevance, what the 3.5, 1.8, 1/8th etc numbers mean. I keep reading about this stuff and all these numbers and fractions have my head spinning a bit.

Is the general Jist of what you're saying IS lenses will require a longer exposure, thus negating the benifit of having an IS lense in the first place? And if so, is that like, that cheap IS kit lense compared to another cheap lense without IS, or compared to a nice, expensive lense?

I'm not worried about fast moving stuff etc, just the shaky hands, and i think i would really prefer to go with a Canon as well, i havent looked into sony's but i assume inbody IS would = out of my budget, of course it makes sense in the long term if all of my lenses are cheaper, but i'm a bit of a noob getting my first SLR and i dont think i should start worrying about extra lenses etc quite yet(as my wife will likely kill me just for this purchase alone).

Now, I've found that EOS 350D(8mp Rebel XT) + that cheap IS lense for about $390 shiped from keh.com, but that is used and i can get a 10 MP Rebel XS new with the same lense(which seems to be stock on newer Rebels), for about $450 shipped newegg. I'm thinking it might be smarter to get the new camera, but i dont know how the XS matches up to the XT, but it seems like they are very similar.

poopinmymouth

12-23-2009, 02:09 AM

To make a properly exposed image you have to get a good ratio of these three things:
ISO: sensativity, higher is more sensative to light (800 vs 200) but introduces more noise, and less dynamic range.
Aperture: Larger apertures (represented by smaller numbers, 1.4 is larger than 2.8 ) let in more light at once.
Shutter speed: length of time sensor is exposed. Longer shutter speeds cannot freeze movement, and slow enough and your hand shake will be evident.

IS only helps with shutter speed. And cheap IS lenses have smaller maximum apertures, negating that IS. You can get IS on fast lenses ( 2.8 ) but you will pay out the nose for it.

ISO 1600, f/1.8, and 1/60 of a second is the same exposure as iso 1600, f/4, 1/15. (traded aperture for shutter speed). 1/60 is enough to negate hand shake and freeze normal movements (not running or quick movements though). 1/15 with IS would steady your hands, but 1/15 would show almost any movement in the subject (even lifting a beer glass, casual turning of the head, etc.

Canon makes a 50mm 1.8 which is about 75 dollars and it owns (I use it). the only lens you can get with IS for under 100 is the cheap kit lens, and it has a sliding 4-5.6 aperture (meaning it's only f/4 at widest, and as you zoom it locks down to 5.6 at the long end). So at 50mm it's going to be more like 4.5 or f/5 lens which completely negates the IS advantage over the cheapo 50mm.

Many people get the kit (cheapo body + cheapo lens) and add the 50mm since it's so daggone cheap. For comparison my 85mm 1.8 was 400 dollars, and my 35mm 1.4 was 1,100 dollars. It makes the 50mm look like a real bargain. Both lenses are much sharper at the low apertures than the 50, and the 50 is plastic vs their metal bodies, with slower noisier autofocus, but it's nice.

Another thing to remember, is that the autofocus works off the lens aperture. Larger apertures enable better focusing in low light. Without the flash providing AF assist, an f/4 lens is not gonna get focus in a lowly lit bar, whereas the 50mm 1.8 would.

disanski

12-23-2009, 02:23 AM

Poopinmymouth this is a lot of great info here. Now everything starts to become a bit more clear to me too. :)
Thanks

Lamont

12-23-2009, 02:37 AM

Earthquake - If you're worried about shaky hands, get a battery grip with two batts. The extra weight will make the shakes go away. Also, if you got huge hands, the grip makes holding these cameras more comfy. If you still got the shakes, then carry a flask with gin, will calm you down. The first three lower end Canon DSLR's come with the IS lens.

I figure a lot of people are visual, here is something that might help:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

EarthQuake

12-23-2009, 09:16 AM

Ben, thank you very much, that is wonderful info. Do you happen to have a link to your cheap 50mm lense?

Tactical Bagpipe

12-23-2009, 11:56 AM

Rick Stirling

12-23-2009, 12:00 PM

If you get a tripod. Don't cheap out, you'll only regret it when it didn't come with a quick-release plate, it is too heavy, has a crappy ball head that won't stay in place with that long zoom etc. etc.

QFT. My tripod is shite. I bought a cheap one. I'll spend £100 a secondhand one next time.

doc rob

12-23-2009, 12:03 PM

To oversimplify: ISO is noise, Aperture is depth, Shutter speed is blur. Changing one means you need to adjust one of the others to get the same exposure, but the camera can do that for you.

poopinmymouth

12-23-2009, 03:57 PM

Dang, everything has gone up since last I checked. It's 100 dollars, but honestly it's the best lens for dollar you can get for any system (all the systems have a cheap, sub-f/2 50mm)

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1261608985&sr=8-1

poopinmymouth

12-23-2009, 03:59 PM

To oversimplify: ISO is noise, Aperture is depth, Shutter speed is blur. Changing one means you need to adjust one of the others to get the same exposure, but the camera can do that for you.

True, but while it might make me sound like a snob, I recommend anyone wanting to really get into photography park that dial on M and learn how to use the meter. Understanding Exposure (the book I recommended) goes a long way toward this.

The reason is that different situations will put a priority on different settings, and knowing exactly what each does and how to trade one for another will put you ahead in the long run.

I only use P now when I'm using my camera as a glorified party snap camera.

ChrisG

12-23-2009, 04:39 PM

I am looking into a dslr and after readings bens posts a 20d looks very attractive. One of the best things about using an old 70's camera like the om-1 is everything is manual so you have no choice but to learn how to shoot pictures.
Sometimes I feel point and shoot cameras have been the death of actual photos.

Anyone know if there would be a mount for om-1 to canon lens? as I have two smexy d.zukio 50 and 28 prime lens (plus the standar 35-75mm which I dont really use) and it would be a crime not to carry on using them.

Lamont

12-23-2009, 04:42 PM

I've seen FD to EF, but the trade off is you loose a couple of stops and go full manual. Full manual on these cameras is not a problem, but you don't have the focus crystals in the viewfinder.

poopinmymouth

12-23-2009, 04:43 PM

Canon EOS mount has a really narrow flange distance, I don't know if you can mount Olympus lenses on it. You should try cameraquest though, they have a lot of adaptors.

ChrisG

12-23-2009, 04:58 PM

It looks like I could get an adapter for the 20d which is very awesome, just have to find a camera to go with it ha! Before then I have an Australian trip to fund so its not high on the list but one day, one day.

Sage

12-23-2009, 06:52 PM

just a few words on taking pictures

when you set your fstop you set it depending on the effect you want. The shutter speed setting will be determined by the light meter. The camera will tell you if the image is averaged, underexposed or overexposed. I say averaged because when the camera says the picture has the perfect amount of light coming into the lens the result is an average picture, you don't get enough contrast between the whites and blacks. That all depends on what you want though, what kind of drama you want to create. So to punch this a bit you can bracket, try over and under exposing the image by one or two settings and usually you get the image with the range you want. You also need to bracket when something is to bright, like say the sky, water, snow because they will through off the light meter. So when the camera tells you it has the perfect amount of light coming it's usually the starting point.

The higher the number of the fstop, say 8 for example, the smaller the aperture is(hole that controls the amount of light that enters the camera). The size of aperture also affects how in focus things stay as they go away from the camera. So a small aperture 8 or higher, keeps everything in the background nice and sharp but a large aperture like say 3.5 would have a low depth of field, which means the background gets blurry really quickly. This is true provided your subject is in focus. :D

shutter speed setting. You usually set this high when you want to capture a fast moving object or when it really freaking sunny. Again you set these things depending on how you want the picture to look. Also if you need to leave the shutter open, like if you are taking pictures at night or low light situation then you set the speed really low. Depending on what you are doing the setting of the aperture follows.

I usually set my fstop first, think of it as modeling for texture purposes. :D So you set your shutter speed depending on what the light meter tells once you have set your fstop.

When do you need a tripod. If the shutter speed is too slow or the aperture is too big, lower than 5.6 if I remember correctly. Or the lens you are using is a zoom lens. I don't know if this applies to macro lens as well.

The other thing that affect your picture is the size of your lens. I think a 50 mm lens is supposed to be the closest to how your eye sees and distorts things in perspective. With a wide angle lens things start to warp at the edges although you can capture a wide area and the higher the number say 100 mm you can focus on something that is distant but you can't fit a lot into the frame.

This info is fairly crude though and I'm very rusty. I'm sure there is a lot more to it and I probably forgot a few things. :D

One of the things I do when I take pictures with my digital camera and I'm inside a building is I set the timer and place the camera on something that is firm like a book case , desk and then push the button. That way I can't mess the picture up with my body movement. You can also lean against the wall and keep your arms tight against your body to diminish your body from shaking. The ideal thing though is to have a tripod, regardless of where you are taking the pictures.

Do you guys know if you can buy a release ( long cable with a button) like you can for a manual camera? That way you are not touching the camera when you take the picture.

EarthQuake

12-23-2009, 07:57 PM

So you guys that use these prime lenses, whats it like? I mean, i dont think i've ever had a camera that didnt have some form of zoom on it, so the idea of a fixed focal length lens seems quite strange to me. Having said that, i dont really use the zoom a whole lot. Are there extra stuff you can stick on to "zoom" with a prime lens? Like those macro kits etc?

Also, what is the crop factor with a lens like that 50mm on a standard dslr? Like what sort of amount are you "zoomed in" if its a fixed length.

Reading about it the most attractive feature with that 50mm prime lens is the high aperture and the ability to have the narrower depth of field, which is something i really want to play with. But it seems like you'de be a little more limited overall with a prime lense?

Also i went and messed with a Rebel XS at office depot today, just playing around with the IS kit lens etc, i found it was pretty hard to take decent shots without the IS, but the lowest i could set it to was like f3.5 or something, and this 50mm is f1.8. So basically it comes down to zoom flexibility over depth of field/shoot speed, when comparing those to lenses, and i think the 50mm probably wins out(i wish i had a change to play with one before i decide).

JordanW

12-23-2009, 08:28 PM

Many people recommend starting of with a prime as your first lens, it gets you to move around more which will (hopefully) have you thinking about composition rather than *Zoom *shoot

actual crop factor is dependent on the body: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS-C but a 50mm turns into roughly 75mm

Yeah a prime limits you but you're going to have better image quality most of the time, there should be less elements of glass the light is going through so less chance for chromatic abberation, vignetting etc....

I only have 1 prime right now and it's a nikkor 35mm F2 and it's nice, not as fast as a 1.4 or 1.8 but it works... and the 35mm on my crop sensory turns into what would be 50mm on a full frame.

I think it's awesome there's so much interest in photography, It really gets you to thinking about light and exposure and will certainly give you skills that translate to games. Yeah it seems a little technical at first but it's not that bad once it clicks :)

Lamont

12-23-2009, 08:55 PM

Do you guys know if you can buy a release ( long cable with a button) like you can for a manual camera? That way you are not touching the camera when you take the picture.Yes, you can. You can also make one. I bought the high end Canon one and then modded it to work with the mini-plug adapter, this way you can set a timer/time-lapse.

I was gonna get ready and snap some nice pictures today when my camera refused to turn on. I usually put it in a room to get it used to the temp I am gonna shoot in (so there is no condensation). I just hope it wasn't too cold/killed my batts.

EarthQuake

12-23-2009, 09:11 PM

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=26,1&fullscreen=true&av=5,5&fl=50,55&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F2

Ok, so these are the two lenses i'm looking at, pdreview has this really cool tool to compare them. Now, if someone could call me an idiot here that would be great, but it *seems like* doing a similar comparison at 50mm f5.6, and 55m f5.6 respectively, and it seems the fixed 50mm is a much sharper lense. However, if you drop down to the higher aperture sizes, it seems like the quality degrades from this point, being on par in the center, and a worse in the corners(however better in the 33% range which is confusing) than the 15-55mm lense, it seems like the gains here in aperture come with reduced image quality, which seems like it shoudn't be.

So, if the best image quality is at around f5 on the 50mm, however with no IS, i'm more likely to get a blurrier shot on this lense than the 18-55mm at f5.6, no? It seems like under ideal circumstances, the 50mm would be quite a bit sharper, but just hand holding the camera the 18-55 would give better results. So, someone tell me if i'm just reading this wrong or something, because it doesn't quite make sense to me.

PS: thanks to everyone has posted here, there has been tonssss of useful info

JordanW

12-23-2009, 09:34 PM

AFAIK you really cannot help getting degrading image quality at a wide open aperture and most lenses have a sharpest aperture to use that's not it's widest setting.

You also have to compare the type of blur you're going to be trading, if you have low available light it's nice to have those extra low Fstops to drop down to because a slightly less sharp image is better than a motion blurred one.

poopinmymouth

12-24-2009, 05:48 AM

The idea is that you can go lower with the 50mm prime. 1.8 is 3 stops faster than 5.6, so yeah with IS you'd be able to take the same brightness photo, but you'd also be at 3x slower shutter speed, losing your action freezing abilities. Remember that sharpness isn't everything. I prefer getting the shot, even if it isn't razor sharp. I've got several photos I've taken at ISO1600, 1/30 of a second, and f/1.4 which is a ludicrous amount of light sucking abilities, and even then it was "just" enough light to get the photo, and one in three were blurred from the 1/30 shutter speed. I can't imagine being limited to 5.6 at 55mm.

50mm on a canon is equiv to 80mm, which is a bit "long". that's why I recommended the 28mm as well, because it's also relatively cheap and it's equiv to 44mm, much nicer for normal shots, but it's limited to 2.8mm. There is a 28mm 1.8, and a sigma 30mm 1.4, but they are pricier (and nicer).

Prime lenses force you to think about the lens fov. The only time zooms are good is when you are limited to how close or far you can get. Sports, weddings, animals, these are times when you need to be able to adjust the size the item is in your frame. With normal things you want to zoom with your feet. Walk closer or walk further.

Here is why (keep in mind this is on a full frame camera, so these lenses are behaving as intended). I can make a subject the same size on any of my 3 lenses (35mm, 50, and 85) by walking closer or further, but the amount of background you see will radically change. 35mm shows a lot of the surroundings to give you a sense of where they are. 85mm compresses and makes the things directly behind them much larger, and doesn't show much of their immediate surroundings. 50mm is halfway between. When I go to make a photo, I'm thinking about what affect I want.

Do I want to show nothing but some important background item like this? (85mm)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2620/4125245652_23c19f96a7_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_chompers/4125245652/)

Do I want to show where the person is, like this? (35mm)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2431/4106499345_c4e1ed813b_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_chompers/4106499345/)

Both of these shots would change radically if I'd switched the lenses, but zoomed with my feet to keep them the same size in the frame. In the first, the church over his shoulder (the definitive landmark in Cologne) would have been miniscule with a 35mm lens and we'd start to see the roof and sides of his balcony, completely unimportant elements. In the 2nd, you wouldn't see the lights hanging from the building in the dark sky, or much of the building at all, you'd just have some white blown out walls behind her.

Having a zoom doesn't force you to think about this. You can of course, but with 2+ prime lenses spaced out in MM lengths, you *have* to think about which would be most appropriate for the shot. It also really gets you familiar with those lengths, knowing exactly what it will bring you. I think prime lenses have more character in how they render backgrounds and contrast as well. Most people with zooms, when they see something they want to take a photo of, lift the camera to their eye, then zoom till their subject is the size they want it in the frame, and take the photo. This completely ignores the relationship of the subject to the background and how much of it's surroundings are showing around it.

That, and without shelling out major dough, at equivalent focal ranges, zooms are never as sharp as prime lenses at the wide open apertures (where you'll be in low light). Sure the 1,500 USD 24-70mm 2.8 is about as sharp at 2.8 as the 100 dollar 50mm at 2.8, but it's 15x more expensive.

poopinmymouth

12-24-2009, 05:56 AM

Also keep in mind that the important elements in a photo are almost never on the edges, so having soft edges isn't all that detrimental. I have the 50mm 1.8, and I've taken photos at 1.8 a lot. Do I wish it was sharper? Sure, but it's just a mental thing, the image has never suffered from it. At 1.8, 95% of the time, the only thing on the edges are super blurry background elements (from the narrow depth of field) where sharpness is irrelevant anyway.

But from what I understand, you can get Canon kit lenses for like 75-100 dollars on craigslist all day long, from people upgrading to nicer lenses. It almost doesn't make sense not to get one if you're limited in budget and do want more lens lengths.

A 20D + craigslist kit lens + 50mm 1.8 shouldn't run more than a new Rebel.

ChrisG

12-24-2009, 09:41 AM

my d.zukio is a 1.8 and I have changed the lens for a long time just because so darned useful. Looking forward to finding me a 20d bodies to slap it on and a play. what would my 50mm prime be on the 20d body 75? I forget the frame size of it.

EarthQuake

12-24-2009, 10:13 AM

Yeah thanks guys, you bring up a lot of good points, in low light i would much rather have the speed than not be able to get the shot at all, even if a little blurry. Can always sharpen a bit in PS =) I think i'll get the 50mm, and look into other stuff down the road if i find it isnt flexible enough for me.

Ben, whats your thoughts on something like a 300d for $160, too old, or would it be workable? From what i've read the 300d has a lot of "software locked" features that you can unlock with a third party firmware update. I think i'll end up going with a used XT body for about $260, but if i could get by with the 300d maybe i could get a nicer lens instead.

poopinmymouth

12-24-2009, 01:11 PM

There aren't so many differences in the progress upgrades within a line. XXDs are mostly the same, it's only when you go to XXD or XD that it starts jumping in features. Canon locks down feature sets based on price. Even the newest 500d has areas that aren't as nice as the 10D (original XXD camera). That said, 160 dollars sounds like a steal.

Blaizer

12-24-2009, 01:47 PM

Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Sony, all brands have great dslr cameras and all depends of what you are aiming for.

I recommend you to check out http://www.cameralabs.com, you can see examples of photos taken with the main preferred cameras, with the different iso levels for each camera.

I'm also after one of these toys... prices in Europe are very prohibitive. You can buy a good camera in USA for 500 dollars, but in europe its price is more than 500 euro, very unfair when 1 euro = 1,4 dollar.

Ebay is a good place to buy some lenses, though they still are very expensive (some lenses are more expensive than the camera body!). I'd go for a pack with 2 cheap lenses.

JordanW

12-24-2009, 03:31 PM

Eh I say one nice lens over two cheap ones. Doesn't matter how nice your camera is if your glass is crap.

marks

12-24-2009, 04:05 PM

Posting to confirm the Canon 50mm 1.8 is extremely awesome. Just mind-blowingly good for the price, I picked up mine about 6 months ago for a mere £50.

Blaizer

12-24-2009, 04:33 PM

Eh I say one nice lens over two cheap ones. Doesn't matter how nice your camera is if your glass is crap.

Sure, but some combos include very high quality lenses. You don't need to pay more if you buy the lens separately. The lens is as important as the body :) (or more), so if someone won't need 2 lenses, go for a better lens.

ChrisG

12-24-2009, 04:53 PM

I have said it before but my zukio 50mm a.8 is dirty cheap+ awesome. on ebay I got mine for 8 pound (about $15) and is one of the best makes around. So maybe worth a look for a few people. The 28mm was slightly more (around 20).

Sorry to spam with the love for old Olympus stuff.

EarthQuake

12-24-2009, 11:48 PM

doc rob

12-26-2009, 09:38 PM

except the 500D shoots 1080p video, if that matters to you (it's been great for me). Just got my 50mm prime for xmas and have been loving the portraits over the last couple of days.

EarthQuake

12-26-2009, 11:01 PM

Yeah i dont care much about video, so not a big deal to me. I've been checking ebay and seeing 20D's go as low as about $220, so i think i'll just wait it out and snag one there when i can get it for a good price. I've also seen that 28mm lense go for about $150 as well, so i think i will grab the 50mm, and then wait til i can get a decent price on the 28 and grab that as well.

I was talking with my father in-law a bit and he mentioned alternate focus mirrors, he had an old Nikon N90 with a split prism focus mirror that was realllllly cool, turns out you can get one for a 20d for about $25 or so off ebay, but not a changeable part in the Rebel series.

poopinmymouth

12-27-2009, 06:20 AM

Split prism is awesome, I didn't know you could get them for so cheap, I need to see if I can get one for my 5D.

One new awesome tech that just came out on the most expensive Hasselblad line (40k for just the body) is an internal gyroscope that adjusts the field of focus based on your recomposing. Most people put the center AF spot over their subject, achieve focus, then recompose the view, but since the focus is radial, that can move the focus behind your subject. This new tech can tell how much you rotated the camera view, and moves the focus to stay within that distance plane. In a few years I'm sure this will trickle down to normal cameras, along with Sony's new sensors that put the electronic circuit board behind the light diodes instead of the current way of having it between the diode and lens.

In the next 3-5 years I expect to see some really amazing jumps in sensor tech.

EarthQuake

12-27-2009, 08:59 AM

they retail for like $100(katz eye), but if you can find the proper one for your camera, you can get it for under $30 on ebay it seems, from china i guess tho. There was one for the 20d a couple days ago, looking now it looks like you can get them for rebels etc too.

http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?LH_IncludeSIF=1&LH_AvailTo=1&_nkw=split+prism

ChrisG

12-27-2009, 09:17 AM

Is that when there is a circle in the middle of the view finder and focusing brings the two half's together? if so yer its super helpful when focusing my slr.

EarthQuake

12-27-2009, 02:21 PM

yeah, thats the one

fonfa

12-27-2009, 05:10 PM

Adding a little bit on what poop said:

Different focal lengths not only can bring the background closer or further away, they also push the perspective of your subject. Longer focal lengths tend to flatten perspective, tending to be ortographic on the extremes. So when taking ref pics for modelling or textures, the biggest the focal length, the better, since you're gonna use those pictures on the ortographic views and want as little perspective interference as possible.

Coincidentally, I was talking about this to mom earlier today and took those pics to illustrate:

http://imgur.com/d9xFJ.jpg

That's quite important when taking portraits as well, since you can make people's features seem bigger, like mom's nose for example. And people who have fat faces will seem fatter on a bigger focal length.

Lamont

12-27-2009, 05:31 PM

Yeah, you don't wanna use those for portrait shots. I use my 85mm or the 70~200 2.8L. But it depends on the kind of shoot you want to do.

toren3d

12-28-2009, 06:36 PM

EarthQuake

12-28-2009, 08:01 PM

It seems like for what the 20d sells for on ebay, you can only get a broken 400d(XTI). =)

LoTekK

12-29-2009, 12:45 AM

Wha price are you seeing on the used 20ds? I managed to find a local auction for a 20d body, but it's significantly higher than a new 500d (1300sgd sans warranty vs 900sgd)

EarthQuake

12-29-2009, 11:45 AM

$200-330 USD for used 20d bodies depending on accessories and condition, they go higher than that too, but a good amount of them sell in that price range. You may be able to luck out and find someone willing to ship international.

LoTekK

12-29-2009, 05:06 PM

Wow, that's a hell of a price difference. I've noticed a trend of local second-hand cameras not really shaving much off the price of the new articles, which is a bit annoying. Cheers for the heads up on the d20 prices.

thomasp

12-29-2009, 05:40 PM

on lenses - has anyone here ever tried one of the lensbabies models - perhaps the 'composer' even? once in a while i stumble over cool shots done with them but i am left wondering how practical these are or if it's just a gimmick one gets tired of quickly. can they do anything you couldn't do with a little post? also, lots of CA visible in those shots, what are the optical qualities like?

poopinmymouth

01-01-2010, 06:01 AM

gimmick one gets tired of quickly

Yes.

poopinmymouth

01-01-2010, 06:04 AM

I use, and love, a Canon 400D with Tamron 17-50 2.8

I would recommend it over a used 20D because it will have a larger screen, auto-vibration sensor cleaner, and several other bells and whistles. The 450D is the newer version, but the 400D should be found rather easily and affordably in the used market, since its a little bit older and was very popular.

At iso 1600 the 400d sucks compared to the XXD line. You will see banding in the noise because of the sensor type, whereas the XXD and XD lines have a more random pattern that isn't as obvious to the eye. It might have more bells and whistles, but I've always valued final image quality over small tech advances.

The one exception to this, is when I went from a 40d to a 5D original, the 40d can turn off 1/3 stop iso increments, and the 5d cannot. 1/3 stops are fake ISO done in the firmware and have worse noise than the real stops, so I now have to scroll through them. And the 40D shows iso in the viewfinder at all times, and the 5D only when changing, but I'd still take my 5d anyday over the 40d, and I'd take my 40d any day over a 500d.

Entity

01-02-2010, 06:52 AM

If I was to start from scratch i'd get a cheap, used 5d with low mileage and a couple of awesome primes.

danr

01-02-2010, 07:20 AM

from my POV, one of the best things about the 5D is you're only paying for quality (and full-frame of course), not a shed-load of features i'd never use. This might not be the case for everyone though.

I upgraded to a 5D from a 350D, which had all the full-auto and landscapey/portraity/sportsy etc preset modes which i used for maybe the first few months while i was getting used to a dslr - and which did prove useful - but then never touched again. Also a built-in flash, same thing. Most of this is missing on a 5D (though it still has a forgiving P mode, which is auto with lots of manual overrides), it does expect you to know what you're doing with a dlsr. It will also show up the inadequacies of cheapy glass, the only lens i have been able to carry over was the 50mm

Zpanzer

01-02-2010, 09:11 AM

Im also looking for getting an entry level DSLR for some amatuer photo shooting. My dad owns a Nikon D70 with a Nikkor 18-135mm that I've been playing around with for some time.
Now after reading this thread it seems like people's money are on a used 20d and getting a fixed 50mm lense for forced learning on how to move your legs instead of using lense zoom, right?
I would love get a camera that I can have for a few years and the abillity to shoot some HD video. I followed the link that Blaizer posted on page to www.cameralabs.com and I immedialy spotted their "Best Buy" section with budget DSLR cams.
After reading the articles and watching the attached videos, I kinda got my heart locked on an Canon EOS 450D/Rebel XSi. Now this of course the one that costs the most(New price here in Denmark is around 730 dollars for the house and a 18-55mm IS lense). Would this be worth it? Or should one still aim for an older model and then buy some better glass instead?

poopinmymouth

01-02-2010, 11:06 AM

If I was to start from scratch i'd get a cheap, used 5d with low mileage and a couple of awesome primes.

Yep, best choice right now hands down. Anything more is pissing money away.

My kit = 5D, 28,35,50,85mm

EarthQuake

01-02-2010, 08:44 PM

So i ended up getting a 350d, was getting impatient waiting for a 20d to drop to my price range, so i just got the XT instead. Then the next day one went for like $210. Fuckers! Anyway i got a few extras with the 350d, kit lens, extra battery, 2+4 gb card and a wireless remote thing. Everything i need to start messing with it as soon as it gets here!

I ordered that 50mm 1.8 prime lens and i'm wondering what you guys think about using something like an older FD lense with a fd->ef mount, you can get them for cheap as hell. It seems like the big deal is you wouldn't have any auto control over it, but that in itself might be a fun/educational thing to do. Is there anyone who's done this and can give an opinion on it?

I'm thinking something like this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/CANON-FD-28mm-f-2-8-WIDE-ANGLE-PRIME-MF-LENS-f2-8-28-mm_W0QQitemZ130349581142QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_ Lenses?hash=item1e5970c356

Also, cheap ass extension tubes. Again seems like only manual controls when doing this, you can buy a cannon brand one but they are quite a bit more expensive you have to pick a certain length unlike the cheap modular kits.

http://cgi.ebay.com/3-Ring-Macro-Extension-Tube-for-Canon-400D-350D-450D-Ne_W0QQitemZ160389545792QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLens_Ac cessories?hash=item2557f63f40

I'm sort of thinking maybe get a cheap older lens with a converter, and use that with the exclusively with the macro extenders as all of that stuff needs to be manual anyway.

And finally, thoughts on uv filters or anything else, what you cant live without, are cheap ones going to affect quality etc?

Ben, i grabbed "understanding exposure" and "understanding shutter speed" from the library, good reads. Also got a huge Ansel Adams book on technique etc that i havent dug into yet, looks like some cool stuff there too.

marks

01-02-2010, 08:49 PM

I would recommend getting at least a half-decent UV filter for the 50mm, if only to protect the front element. I have one of the Hoya ones on mine, seems like a reputable brand, I would recommend them. I use a Hoya cir-polarizing filter from time to time on the same lens, I've found it can really pop the contrast in some situations.

Entity

01-02-2010, 11:34 PM

Yep, hoya uvs are pretty decent...of course if you want better ones look into the B+W brand. More expensive uv filters are thinner and have better coating (i think), so this reduces the additional ghosting/flaring you get when putting extra shit in front of the lens.

Idk about older lenses, but if you can live with full manual exposure then go ahead :D After a while it gets easier, hell my leica M3 doesn't have auto anything ( and I even use manual on my M8 )

LoTekK

01-03-2010, 02:11 AM

Full manual is fun as hell, and experimenting doesn't cost you shit, unlike when you had to pay for film. :p I had a few months playing with a d80 about a year back, and for the most part I left everything on manual, from focus to exposure to aperture, etc. Way more fun, and you actually understand what the settings do.

danr

01-03-2010, 03:52 AM

UV filters are a leftover from film, they have no effect on a dslr at all other than protection. Cheapy ones will degrade quality though. It's a question of how expensive your lens is, what sort of environments you may be shooting in and whether you really need protection (lots of crud in the air?), and then balancing that with the cost of a filter

for photos rather than protection, you'd be better off with a good polarising filter, at least they have a use in terms of the image. They're a pain to use with a hood though, and really need removing when the light gets dim. On a holiday last year i was moving between outdoor and indoor, and screwing and unscrewing the thing so often i ended up dropping it and breaking the thread.

LoTekK

01-03-2010, 05:15 AM

A good pair of sunglasses works decently as a polarizing filter if you need one in a pinch. :p Obviously they'd have to be pretty big for a dslr lens, but if your girl wears those big sunnies that seem to be somewhat in vogue, they'll do. :p I've actually taken some decent impromptu shots with a pair of sunglasses, both with a dslr and a point and shoot.

poopinmymouth

01-03-2010, 07:42 AM

Lamont

01-03-2010, 08:45 AM

If you happen to get into macro photography, you can find a set of bellows and use a nice FD with that, as there will be no glass and you're gonna be manual anyways. Any adapter you use, you're gonna loose stops. Also, you can't control the stops on DSLR lens' with bellows.

Anything flying fast enough to scratch your lens will probably kill you or hurt you pretty bad, so you best be paid to be there, or get the shot. The surface is pretty hard and the coating can get scratched, but will not have any effect on the lens itself. Also, you can run a lens with a decent scratch and not notice it. Cracks, no. When I shoot with huge ocean sprays, I run glass cover as spray can dry quick in the sun/air and will affect the shoot, so I swap to a clean glass cover. Also, I used a filter when working with a performer who eats fire, the dude kept spitting on the stuff, and the soot from the kerosene lamps did leave residue, so I swapped glass through the shoot. I use polarized filters for shooting things behind/around certain types of glass and the light isn't on their side or working with me. When things have polarized glass/tint, no filter, less trouble to edit in post.

Entity

01-03-2010, 12:48 PM

FD to EF has to have a piece of glass in it to adjust for the difference in flange distance, and it seriously degrades quality. I do not recommend going with FD lenses unless you have an actual FD camera. If you want to go older cheaper, buy old nikon or minolta glass with an adaptor, as long as the adaptor has no glass, you're ok, but cheap glass adaptors suck ass.

Do not buy UV filters, they are a waste of money. Your front elements don't need protection unless you're shooting in a sand storm in Iraq. I use my lenses in all kinds of conditions, and never use any filters, and have no problem. Cheap filters degrade image quality and add horrible flair, and expensive ones cost as much as nice lenses. They are seriously a waste of money.

They do come in handy once in a while :)

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/9958/mg2184.jpg (http://img696.imageshack.us/i/mg2184.jpg/)

poopinmymouth

01-04-2010, 10:30 AM

They do come in handy once in a while :)

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/9958/mg2184.jpg (http://img696.imageshack.us/i/mg2184.jpg/)

A lens hood would have prevented the same thing without degrading image quality.

I guess I'm just careful with my gear, but I'd rather have every photo I take be utmost quality, than in the 1:1,000,000 chance I drop my lens front first onto a jagged rock from a 10 foot ladder that the UV filter protects it.

Seriously, if you go on any serious photography forum, it's the amateurs swearing by UV filters, and the serious professionals who never mount anything on the front of their lens unless it's for a very specific purpose (like a graduated neutral density filter).

By all means, if you want to waste money and degrade the image quality, buy a crappy UV filter and put it on your lens, but I don't, and I've never regretted it, and I'm out all the time taking photos.

Jeremy Lindstrom

01-04-2010, 12:31 PM

i still need to learn how to use my canon digital rebel xd :D got the 55mm lense and a 200 one. :D

Lamont

01-04-2010, 05:13 PM

A good way to see the amount of image quality lost with a cheap filter is to take a picture of something with vivid colors and fine detail. Your colors can be corrected (much more work), but the detail will never be recovered.

When I was shooting rally cross, I didn't run a filter/glass cover. Just know when to use zoom, and when to turn the lens for focus in high dust situations. If I have my 70-200 2.8L, I have the camera strap and proper camera holding all the time. Properly holding the camera is the first part of the battle, next is stance. Having a battery grip helped that a lot. If I am going to be moving a lot from location to location to get a shot, I use the strap. I am more worried about having someone steal my shit than dropping my camera, and I've banged my 70~200 2.8L a few times.

Filters are for very specific things: I have my polarized filters for outdoor stuff with no people, nature shot and cars, two ND's for long exposures/time-lapse and an NDG for arena stuff with crazy lights up high (I haven't used this in a while...). Even in the above situations I may or may not use one of those filters. And these are not the $20 for 3 ebay/camera store filters. The majority of the filter's I have for the 85mm and the 70~200mm are $160+ for each one. The filters for the 77mm are stupid expensive.

vcool

01-04-2010, 05:18 PM

Ha, this thread has grown.

My flight was cancelled that saturday (oh man, I have so much to tell about Continental Airlines and Newark airport, and yes - I was among the "evacuated" yesterday.../rage) and the new one was a day later. So on sunday I went to B&H and got the 20D, a 28mm prime, a 50mm prime, and other stuff.

then I went to Venezuela and now I have about 1000 photos taken, though about 75% of them are worthless.

I didn't get the book so I basically experimented with stuff. The camera is great when used properly, but I really wanted to kick myself for not getting a tripod. I have rather shaky hands and though in some places you can just let the camera sit atop something, in most situations a tripod was a must have. I'll be posting some pics that I think are good later on in the according thread.

It's good to be back home.

Entity

01-04-2010, 08:42 PM

By all means, if you want to waste money and degrade the image quality, buy a crappy UV filter and put it on your lens, but I don't, and I've never regretted it, and I'm out all the time taking photos.

No need to get defensive, I was just trying to point out to EQ how a uv filter might come useful :) A good uv filter really doesn't degrade that much quality (so far I haven't seen any real tests proving that it does) unless of course you're shooting really really low light and have bright light sources, in which case some ghosting might occur due to internal reflections.

It's not really quite black and white either (amateurs use uv filters, pros don't) I know some pros who prefer to use them rather than hoods, and vice versa. The main argument being that hoods tend to add a lot of bulk to an already huge lens (not uncommon especially for the more exotic ones) and the uv filters that they can afford to buy don't affect the quality of their files at all.

Some of the advantages of having a uv filter:

1) Much, much easier to clean. It's quite nerve wracking when you have to clean the front element of a lens (finger prints, dust etc)

2) Some added weathersealing (rain, dust etc) In fact, there are some lenses which require you to use an additional filter to complete it's sealing.

3) The accidental scratch or drop (lens hoods do the same thing, although some don't prefer the added bulk)

4) Pop it on and never think about it again :) One common issue I see is that for some unexplainable reason, accidents happen when the hood is not mounted on the lens (or mounted reversed) The universe is cruel :D

Of course, crappy glass is still crappy glass..so get a good one if you do decide to have one on. Hoya brands are pretty decent, and they're not really that expensive either.

EDIT: Thought I'd do a quick comparison between filtered and unfiltered.

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/8992/outj.jpg (http://img684.imageshack.us/i/outj.jpg/)

Notice how I haven't lost any of the contrast, microcontrast and color richness even when using a filter. You might see some dark spots on the right image, that's not vignetting..thats actually the filter's thread (I had to hold it in front of the lens, didn't have a filter for this particular lens)

100% crops..

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/8641/100hc.jpg (http://img684.imageshack.us/i/100hc.jpg/)

No sharpening was done :) Any differences in quality is microscopic at best, and the plane of focus might have shifted ever so slightly for the filtered picture (holding a a camera with one hand while a filter with the other is a bit hard :P)

Of course, this is just an informal test. I'm not trying to discredit those who don't prefer to use uv filters...but hey, there's nothing wrong in using them either.

poopinmymouth

01-05-2010, 05:26 AM

Almost everyone in this thread is talking about budget setups and good UV filters cost as much as decent prime lenses. And UV filters degrade flare, not really contrast or sharpness.

Even with my nice lenses, i'd rather spend 100 USD on a new lighting modifier than a UV filter. They're snake oil. If you personally want to use them, go ahead, but I hate it when it's bandied around as good advice for beginners when it's pretty awful. they will either A) buy a cheap UV filter that does nothing, or B) waste valuable money on a good UV filter that could have been spend on actual picture taking gear like lenses or a nicer body.

Copy pasted from another forum:

http://www.mr-chompers.com/net/blog/uvfilter-kitlens.jpg

UV filters do have a purpose and are not completely a waste. If your lens is $1000, and you are willing to spend about $100 on UV filter, then it may be a good idea to use one if the conditions are messy. Some Canon lenses with weather sealing need a filter to complete the seal. Obviously anything that's going to harm your lens will harm your filter. So putting your filter on in a sand storm will save your lens but destroy your filter, and that's the goal at the high end. These situations though DO NOT apply to anyone who needs to have this explained to them. Your 17-55 4-5.6 IS/VR Kit Lens is worth about $50 in mint condition used. You can buy a new one for $150. It doesn't make sens to spend $100 on a filter to 'protect' it when you degrade the image quality by doing so. You can always use a hood to protect your lens if you're worried about it.

Entity

01-05-2010, 08:03 AM

That image comparison was a response towards Lamont's claims that UV filters affect color and fine detail. I know that UV filters cause flaring, thats what i've been trying to point out for the last 2-3 posts yet everyone seems to think it's image IQ's arch nemesis or something.

I can understand why you hate them, most of your photography heavily involves strobes and studio lighting..so I can see where having a filter on would cause problems :) But for those who don't really do those type of photos, there are some merits to having a good UV filter. Again, i'm only trying to point out the advantages of having one to those new to photography. I don't recommend them buying one but I don't have a vendetta against filters either. In fact, I rarely use them myself.

( In my country shops tend to give away hoya filters for free, so I guess thats why the price of filters never bothered me..I get them for free :P )

But yeah, I admit defeat :) You obviously know much more in this subject matter, having more experience with lights and studio type photography. I'm horrible at that stuff XD

disanski

01-05-2010, 08:30 AM

This has become my favorite thread :)
Thanks for all the help. I was told I need to have a filter and i just got one of the Hoya filters. Not that it will make a big difference for me but I think I will remove it and try to compare myself.

Entity

01-05-2010, 08:47 AM

Have fun! It's really not that bad, 90% of the time the filter won't affect the IQ..just remember to take it off if there's any bright lights in the frame :)

sir-knight

01-05-2010, 02:09 PM

here's a question... I've been perusing the dslr market for a while, and while new is nice and fancy, I really can't see myself spending that much for something I'd use seldomly and experiment with mainly to gather reference from a distance.

I have a standard 4mp PaS canon elph, what I'd like is something that I can burst shoot lots with, cars 'n stuff in action, so most likely a telephoto lens as well, also to get long shots of stuff for reference if I can't get close to things. Problem is, I can't seem to find a decent camera that has a fast/long burst.

Any one have a suggested nikon or canon that's been on the market I'd say up to 5 years? something that can use SD or SDHC, though I do have a CF card reader, but getting new cards can be difficult... especially in the larger sizes.

going older can net me more features that I'd like to play with, going newer could possibly get me better sensor or body. I'd like to compile a list to keep an eye on the used market and see if anything worth my while surfaces.

poopinmymouth

01-05-2010, 02:46 PM

Long sustained bursts = $$$$

You need a dslr at least, and then you probably have to go with something newish to get over 3-5 fps.

Even so, you know that photographers managed to photograph practically ever subject matter for decades without super fast prolonged bursts? It takes practice, but once you get the hang of it, you get the exact moment you want instead of just spraying and praying. It's the difference between a sniper rifle and an uzi.

vcool

01-05-2010, 02:59 PM

As for it being difficult to find CF cards, that's not true at all since plenty of photographers still use old cameras. There are plenty of CF cards sold in photo stores.

I bought a Sandisk 8GB one, but I advise you don't because it really has 7.43 GB, or at least mine does. That's a ripoff. I don't know about other companies though, maybe it's even less there.

EarthQuake

01-05-2010, 03:08 PM

1 GB to any memory/hard disk company = 1000 KB, not 1024 as it is properly in your OS. You get the same thing with hard drives etc, its not a sandisk thing just a retarded practice in PC hardware industry.

You can find plenty of CF cards on newegg, ranging from 1-8 gigs or so, hardly difficult to find. Tho i would have preferred SD myself too, luckily the camera i bought came with a 2 and 4GB CF card.

disanski

01-05-2010, 03:17 PM

Excuse me not really knowing much about photography but aren't the CF wayyy faster ? Why would you prefer sd ?

EarthQuake

01-05-2010, 03:49 PM

I've got a couple SD cards laying around here, it would have meant that i just wouldn't have needed to buy a new card, that is all. I'm not too sure about speed differences.

vcool

01-05-2010, 03:55 PM

Entity

01-05-2010, 07:12 PM

Excuse me not really knowing much about photography but aren't the CF wayyy faster ? Why would you prefer sd ?

Some cameras only accept sd cards, while others cf. Newer ones even accept both :D

But yeah cf cards can be faster than sd cards, but the newer sdhc ones are getting faster.

sir-knight

01-06-2010, 09:20 AM

EarthQuake

01-06-2010, 03:11 PM

my compact (canon sd1100) can do "unlimited" burst, i'm not sure what the frame rate is but i'm surprised to see expensive dSLRs showing only a 23 frame burst or whatever. I guess that is 23 at max FPS, and that my compact can only do a few a max FPS and then it slows down, and both are "unlimited".

I like burst for doing panoramas

poopinmymouth

01-06-2010, 03:39 PM

It's because of the increased frame rate. If your camera was taking 3+ images a second, yours would stall out too. Plus many of these can do like 7 in a row of RAW files, which is 10+ mb a pop. Impressive shit actually. They will keep doing it after, it will just have to wait for the buffer to unload, just like your P&S.

I don't ever use the burst rate, but what I do like, is that the camera is ALWAYS ready to take the next photo. time between shutter button depression to photo capture is milliseconds. mirror blackout is milliseconds, and it's ready to take another photo sooner than you are if you let your finger off the button. That was never the case with my Panasonic Lumix.

EarthQuake

01-14-2010, 12:16 PM

Alright so i got my 350D and am very happy with it, having full control over all this stuff is really cool, i'm sure the 20D would have had a few things that were a bit better but for a noob like me i can't really see that i need anything more here. The biggest problem i've noticed so far is poor autofocus in low light, but i think the 20d suffers from the same problem due to the lack of dedicated AF assist lamp.

The increased dynamic range and full control over RAW is great stuff, makes post really easy.

The camera came with the stock 18-55 kit lens, and tho i didnt want it at the time, i'm glad i got it for everyday messing about, as the 50m prime is quite cropped. I'm definately gonna save up and get a 28mm prime as the f3.5-5.6 is a bit of a pain, and 28mm seems like it would be a really good companion to the 50mm, to get that wider range that i only have on the kit lense.

The 50mm is fantastic-awesome, i love the great depth of field and the flexibility you get with a 1.8 aperture. Both of these lenses are cheap-as-hell construction, but it doesnt really get in the way of taking shots. And the weight on these light lenses is actually quite nice.

The "feel" of everything from the main dial, manual focusing, to the click of the shutter is so cool and just makes me happy, its a world of difference compared to my ultra-compact P&S.

poopinmymouth

01-14-2010, 12:19 PM

Awesome to hear you found something your happy with. Maybe we should do a "share your flickr thread" :-)

EarthQuake

01-14-2010, 12:22 PM

Oh one more thing. Anyone know how to get the software that is supposed to come with the camera? I want to mess around with Canon DPP but it seems you can only download "updates" for this stuff and not the actual software.

vcool

01-14-2010, 12:30 PM

Well it should come with a few CDs. My used 20D came with 3 discs, SanDisk ImageMate, the Digital Photo Professional ver 1.6 (from like 2004 I guess) and EOS Digital Solution disk. The latter installs stuff like CR2 support, the EOS Photo viewer (you should compare pictures through that and through the Window's image viewer. They are a world apart in sharpness).

I still haven't installed DPP though.

Oh and I think there should be another disk with some other stuff but I am not sure.

EDIT: if you don't end up finding it I think you could contact Canon and tell them what happened and they might have a hidden download location or maybe they can send you the disk, but I don't know.

EarthQuake

01-14-2010, 12:35 PM

Yeah i got it used off of ebay without the software. I sent cannon support an email so i guess i'll wait and see what happens. I've found some registry hacks to get the stuff working from updates but their a couple years old and dont seem to work with the latest version on canon's site.

Its rather silly that they dont provide this software for free, like there is a gang of pirates out there who do not have canon cameras but really want to use the canon software... I dont really get it.

poopinmymouth

01-14-2010, 12:47 PM

google it. There is a link to the super old original install that still works from the canon site. Install that, then install the latest update.

I'd post the link but I lost it.

Entity

01-14-2010, 12:50 PM

If you can't get DPP, there are plenty of other raw converters (Lightroom, CaptureOne, even Photoshop) My personal favourite would be Lightroom, mainly because it's so fast and organizes everything properly. If you want killer detail from your raw files then CaptureOne does a pretty good job.

Adobe's offering a free beta version of Lightroom 3.0, go check it out :)

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/

EDIT: If you do get lightroom, be sure to check this setting on the right panel.

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/789/68163874.jpg (http://img260.imageshack.us/i/68163874.jpg/)

Basically it tells LR how to interpret the raw colors (usually matched to your camera's own "color" settings, eg standard, vivid, neutral etc)

EarthQuake

01-14-2010, 12:59 PM

Ben: Yeah i've been googling trying to find something like that but with no luck, any idea on a better phrase to google for to find it?

Entity: Cool, i'll try that out. I've actually just been using CS3 here for raw stuff, but was reading some stuff about DPP that seemed pretty cool, and would just like to try the app that is custom tailored to my camera.

Entity

01-14-2010, 01:13 PM

Theres a way of fooling the DPP updates into thinking that you already have DPP installed on your PC.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/597859

Registry edits though.

poopinmymouth

01-14-2010, 03:02 PM

Oh yeah I forgot to mention, Lightroom is way better than DPP. I don't even have dpp installed on my pc.

erikb

01-14-2010, 06:12 PM

The 50mm is fantastic-awesome, i love the great depth of field and the flexibility you get with a 1.8 aperture. Both of these lenses are cheap-as-hell construction, but it doesnt really get in the way of taking shots. And the weight on these light lenses is actually quite nice.

Hey, just wanted to say that the 50mm f/1.8, is known for being a very sharp lens (as in image quality), even sharper than some L lenses. I also use this lens not only for pictures, but video as well. Of course the lens has some other optic problems like all cheap lenses have, but very sharp, very useable. Note: At it's sharpest not full open of course, but not bad.

sir-knight

01-17-2010, 03:35 PM

Zpanzer

01-17-2010, 04:05 PM

I bought a used Canon EOS 450D used with a 18-125mm sigma DC glass. I'm not sure about it's lenses abillity to do sharp images, but for the price I paid for the cam, it was still a steal. I'm saving up now for the Canon 50mm prime, since everyone recommends it :)

erikb

01-17-2010, 04:05 PM

is a Canon Rebel XT/350D a good camera to start with? someone I know is selling his, 6 months old with balance of warranty and the kit lens (18-55mm EFS) seems to retail new still for about 600 on the web, he's selling for 350.

I've found some reviews on it and they say the display is a little hard to read in bright light, but other than that it's a decent.

I do notice though that the camera hit the market 5ish years ago, so I'm curious if it's actually a good deal or not, given the model's age.

Wasn't this the camera the thread-starter ended up getting?

I began my DSLR journey with this camera as well, and not having done that much SLR photography, this ended up being a good choice for me, it served its purpose as a introduction to the world of (D)SLR photography and photography in general. Although that was 4-5 years ago.

But, depending on how much money you would have to spend, and how serious you were about photography, even as a hobby, I'd might look into something more advanced, and of course then slightly more expensive...

Semi-pro/pro-sumer alternatives, new, very good cameras, are 5D Mark II (full format, uncropped), 7D (cropped), but cheaper than the 5D MkII, and just as good, if not better in many areas, newer image processor, faster picture rate, and a lot of other stuff. I still prefer the 5d Mk II because of the uncropped factor. Both has 1080p video. These are cameras in a whole other price range of course.

If you're coming from a background of SLR photography, going to a cropped camera can be annoying... disappointing really, a downgrade. If you don't have a photography background at all, you won't care about that.

Know that the 350 kit lens is not good.

sir-knight

01-17-2010, 05:36 PM

yeah, I was told to offer the guy 200$ or move on, for the amount of cash he's asking for and given that there are 3-4 models between his and new now, I'm sure I could find something newer.

ChrisG

01-17-2010, 05:51 PM

If you're coming from a background of SLR photography, going to a cropped camera can be annoying... disappointing really, a downgrade. If you don't have a photography background at all, you won't care about that.

Know that the 350 kit lens is not good.

Thats the worry I have being as I have used full frame cameras my whole photography life i am apprehensive about the cropping factor i read the 20d has a crop factor of 1.6 is this true?

vcool

01-17-2010, 06:58 PM

Thats the worry I have being as I have used full frame cameras my whole photography life i am apprehensive about the cropping factor i read the 20d has a crop factor of 1.6 is this true?

Yeah the XXD line is all cropped.

erikb

01-17-2010, 09:29 PM

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx

A good overview of crop factors here.

EarthQuake

01-17-2010, 09:43 PM

Any DSLR aside from the very expensive full frame bodys have a 1.5-1.6 crop, you've gotta pay out the ass for a full frame to get a true 1:1. $1000+ just for an older used body, thousands for new.

I got the 350D for $308 shipped with some extras, kit lens, battery, 2+4 gig memory card and a remote shutter. To me this was a really good deal. 350 seems a bit high as you can probably find one around 260-280 with the body and kit lens on ebay, 200-220 for just the body.

I find its a pretty great camera for the money, you can read a few posts above to see my thoughts on it overall(last page?). I dont notice the crop factor, because i've never really used a film SLR. In general you just need to step a couple feet back and you'll still get the same shot, i think its something you would get used to, it is a bit of a pro if you're into telezoom lenses, as all of your lenses are 1.5X. But a standard 50mm lens has the crop factor of a 75mm lense, so you may need to get some wider angle lenses to do the same sort of stuff you're used to with your film slr.

The screen(poor view angles, no live view), LED status thing(not sure if its my camera, but it seems sort of dodgy at certain angles), and lack of a dedicated AF lamp are the biggest negatives to me with the camera. Other than that, it has pretty fantastic image quality, if image quality is your #1 concern, i think its a good choice. You can pay quite a bit more for some cooler features, but image quality from the XXXD to XXD line, and with the newer models in each, seems to be pretty similar. Seems like the big advantages here are with extra features and such, and of course the 1:1 crop on something like the 5D(but for billions lolol).

poopinmymouth

01-18-2010, 03:39 AM

Yeah, full frame is good, but it's honestly not needed unless you've really determined it to be.

Here is how my progress went.

Bought a 40D, 17-40mm f/4, and 70-200mm f/4.
Found out that the 17-40mm was too slow for a lot of images I wanted to take, so I bought a 35mm 1.4. Loved this lens.
Found out that 17mm on a crop wasn't wide enough for my landscape shots, so I bought a sigma 10-20mm lens. Loved this, sold the 17-40mm because I either used my sigma wide angle, or the 35mm 1.4.
Found I never used the 70-200mm f/4, sold that. Bought the 85mm 1.8, loved that lens.
Found I used the 35mm 1.4 for almost everything, and that I wanted a wide angle low light lens, since 35mm on a crop body like the 40D. Purchased a sigma 20mm 1.8, which would give me a 33mm equivalent. This lens sucks balls, so freaking soft and smeary, unusable till f/2.8 or so, which kills it's usability as a low light lens.

At this point I knew I wanted the awesomeness of the 35mm 1.4 to work as intended, as a 35mm wide angle lens. The only solution was to get either the 24mm 1.4 (super expensive) or the 5D original body used (slightly less expensive). I sold the 40d body, plus the sigma 10-20mm because it's a crop only lens, and had exactly enough for a 5D used body.

It's only because I shot a lot and figured out what I was missing and what I wanted to shoot that my gear "holes" became evident. Don't try to anticipate, just get something, anything, even the kit lens, till you shoot a ton and say, Hey I'm always photographing animals at the zoo, I need a telephoto, or I'm always shooting architecture, I need a tilt/shift lens, etc.

karlsmith

01-18-2010, 03:48 AM

nice tips :)

Entity

01-18-2010, 05:58 AM

i'm tempted to move back to canon, just for that 35L :) Sucks that nikon hasn't updated their 1.4 version with AF..I love my zeiss but mf does get tiring.

poopinmymouth

01-18-2010, 06:11 AM

Honestly the 35L is just such an amazing lens. I think the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm 1.2 might come close (but is rangefinder only), and I'm going to be checking out the new Samyang 35mm 1.2 for canon when it finally drops, but I can't imagine any of them being as nice. The only downside is how heavy it is. It's absolutely huge compared to the 35mm f/2 or the sigma 30mm 1.4

Entity

01-18-2010, 06:44 AM

Yeah the samyang caught my eye too, if it's cheap I might try it. You canon folk are lucky though, we're only getting a 1.4 version :(

poopinmymouth

01-18-2010, 07:42 AM

muahahaha, the one time the longer flange distance has been a benefit.

erikb

01-18-2010, 11:34 AM

EarthQuake

01-18-2010, 11:35 AM

What is it about full frame that = better low light performance?

poopinmymouth

01-18-2010, 12:41 PM

The full frame thing is a preference... really, as a lot of things are.

poopinmymouth, you seem pretty keen on fast lenses though, 1.2, 1.4 and such, I don't know if you need lenses that fast for low-light shooting or depth of field. But you know that with a full frame you get much better depth of field and much better low-light shooting? This is something the 5D Mark II really excels at. It has been celebrated by professionals how good its video images are, the look it has, much because of the full frame, when compared to the 7D.

But like I said previously, for people just starting out, neither full frame or really fast lenses are a requirement, like poopinmymouth said, just start shooting and figure out what you need as you're learning.

Oh, a small disadvantage with a full frame is the need for better optics, as more of it is used, out towards the edges, where lenses have the poorest quality.

For those wanting more specific information, check out this article.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-View-Crop-Factor.aspx

If you're into Canon photography, The Digital Picture is all you need really when it comes to reviews of cameras and lenses, very good.

I have a 5D original. The 5D II has nicer high ISO, but only by about 2 stops, and that's not enough for me to shell out the cash for. Right now I spend my money on lighting. ISO 1600 is fine for me right now.

What is it about full frame that = better low light performance?

It's more that big photo receptors = better low light performance, and full frame has room for larger photo receptors because it's a physically larger sensor. (35x24mm vs 24x14mm). Technology can play a small roll, for instance a 40D which is a crop camera, has better iso performance than the original 1Ds, but it's 5+ years newer. Another example is the 5D II. It's double the megapixels of the original 5D, but able to go two full stops higher with the same noise characteristics. It's also 5 years newer.

10 mp seems to be the sweet spot for crop cameras, and 14 or so for full frame, but customers are more easily swayed by higher megapixel numbers, so the camera manufacturers keep cramming in more. The new 7D is an example, it's 18 mp in a crop sensor, and it's not as good at high ISOs as the original 5D at 12mp, and about the same as the 40D which is a crop camera 10mp sensor.

If they made a brand new 6mp full frame sensor, it could go up to ISO 25,600 with almost zero noise and crazy dynamic range, but everyone is convinced they need 20mp+ when it only takes about 6mp to equal the resolution of 35mm film.

EarthQuake

01-18-2010, 12:46 PM

Ah yeah cool so you're talking noise performance at higher ISOs, which i already sort of knew, just wanted to make sure there wasn't some other crazy science there that i didnt understand. I'm still blown away by the noise performance on my 350d, iso 100-800 is pretty fantastic, and iso 1600 is comparable to like iso 400 on my compact, this gives me huge boners. Basically even on this 350d, the entire iso range(100-1600, i think you can hack it to get 3200 or something) is useable. With my compact its like anything over 200 ISO gets pretty sketchy.

Artifice

01-18-2010, 01:10 PM

Excellent information here. I'm just seriously getting into photography and there's a wealth of good advice here. Lately I've been shooting casually with my wife's P&S (PoS?) for some texture sourcing and anything that looks interesting. My father-in-law was a professional photographer (mainly film, moved to digital late). He passed away a few years ago and my mother-in-law mentioned the other day that all his stuff is just sitting in storage if I wanted to use any of it. Needless to say, I jumped at the chance.

What I've got on my hands is a Fuji S2 Pro and a Nikon D70 (as well as 20+ lenses, a full darkroom setup, TONS of lights and studio equipment, etc :poly115:). He was a Nikon guy forever and so all the lenses fit both cameras. I haven't even pulled most of them out of storage yet, so I'll have to see what's lurking there later. What I'm wondering is what the appreciable differences between the two bodies are. I'm really new to all this, but I understand the S2 is quite a bit older (4 years or so?) but seems to have a few higher-end features that the D70 doesn't have. The caveat here is that the D70 lives at my mom-in-law's house (just down the street) but she said I can use it whenever as long as it's available when she wants it. I'm wondering if there's anything I should be aware of between the two bodies and which (if either) would be better to learn the basics of photography with. I'm mainly interested in shooting landscape and exterior architecture (things like industrial areas, houses, etc...not towering buildings that I need a tilt lens for), if that has any bearing on the choice.

I'm certainly going to shoot with both of them just to get a feel for the process, but it's hard to find a heads up comparison with them being different generations and not knowing much about cameras in general. I did pick up a copy of Understanding Exposure and am slowly making my way through it, so hopefully between that and some hands on experience I won't be an idiot for long. :)

Links to reviews/features of both:
S2 Pro (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujiS2Pro/)
Nikon D70 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD70/)

ChrisG

01-18-2010, 01:26 PM

I hate you artifice, seroiusly.

EarthQuake

01-18-2010, 02:14 PM

ditto

vcool

01-18-2010, 04:44 PM

It's been a short while but it already looks like I fucked something up. It seems I got dust in the camera. I just shot this, two shots are with 28mm at f/22 once with UV filter once without, two shots with 50mm at f/22 once with UV filter once without.
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q15/spaghettoid_vermicellus/camera_dust.gif
It's quite noticeable on pictures, but I was always hoping it was the UV filter but it looks like it's dust inside the camera most likely on the sensor (or on it's cover).

What is the best way to clean the camera in such a situation? I'd give this to a local photostore but I believe the price for cleaning would be pretty high.

Entity

01-18-2010, 05:33 PM

If you have a blower you could try blowing the dust from the sensor, if that fails then swabs (very risky though if you've got the shakes)

rube

01-18-2010, 07:12 PM

read your manual and see if you can take a dust mask image of some sort... it'll take a blank image of just the dust and use that to fix images you take from then on. Not perfect but it can help.

Joshua Stubbles

01-18-2010, 09:12 PM

Do NOT use compressed air. It'll fuck up the mirror even more. That's a lot of crap you have on the mirror already - look online for the mirror cleaning kits. They're made to not screw up the mirror coating.

DarthNater

02-08-2010, 07:40 AM

Lamont

02-08-2010, 07:45 AM

I think the Sony kit uses the Olympus mounts, not sure.

EarthQuake

02-08-2010, 08:35 AM

Figured I would post here rather than start a new thread but.....

I just got the Sony Alpha A230 last night and I didn't see anyone mention it in this thread. Any reason behind that? Looks like the lenses are freakin' expensive as hell, but all I want is a wide angle and a decent telephoto lens. It came with the 18-55mm. It was only $450 and the Rebel XS was $550 so I had to be a cheap bastard :)

I think overall Canon/Nikon give you a little better image quality, and have a much wider range of lenses to choose from, so that is the reason most people go with them. Sony has some really cool tho, in-body image stabilization, while nikon/canon you have to buy special IS lenses. I'm sure that sony will be a very nice camera.

DarthNater

02-08-2010, 08:38 AM

I think overall Canon/Nikon give you a little better image quality, and have a much wider range of lenses to choose from, so that is the reason most people go with them. Sony has some really cool tho, in-body image stabilization, while nikon/canon you have to buy special IS lenses. I'm sure that sony will be a very nice camera.

The Image Stabilization was what really sold it for me. I'm shaky as hell (all the damn coffee :P) I realize I'm going to lose some quality from it at slower shutters speeds, but if I really need to take those kind of shots, I'll get a tripod haha.

JordanW

02-08-2010, 08:39 AM

Sony uses minolta mounts. Also sony sensors are shared with other cameras, I believe some of the m appear in Nikons.

EarthQuake

02-08-2010, 08:46 AM

The Image Stabilization was what really sold it for me. I'm shaky as hell (all the damn coffee :P) I realize I'm going to lose some quality from it at slower shutters speeds, but if I really need to take those kind of shots, I'll get a tripod haha.

Yeah if i would have wanted to spend a little more and get a new camera, that sony would have warranted serious consideration. I ended up with a canon XT(350d) + accessories + 18-55mm kit lens + 50mm F1.8 prime lens for $400, which was my max budget =)

I have really shaky hands as well, but its turned out to be less of an issue. Its sucks with my ultra-compact P&S, as it has terrible iso performance(over 200 is unusable) and is pretty uncomfortable to hold/way too light to get a sturdy grip on it. On my 350, the weight/feel of it make it much easier to get a sturdy grip, the noise performance is much better, ISO 100-800 is great-good, and iso 1600 is still usable. Couple that with the fast F1.8 50mm, and you've got a really good solution to the low light/anti shake problem.

Reading reviews it looked like the canon had a little better iso performance than that sony, but your sony is still going to be miles ahead of a P&S.

DarthNater

02-08-2010, 08:52 AM

Reading reviews it looked like the canon had a little better iso performance than that sony, but your sony is still going to be miles ahead of a P&S.

Yeah i looked at the reviews and some comparison shots and they looked decent up to about 1600. I mainly want to shoot scenery and texture references so I hopefully won't have to use that high of an ISO (I say that now but once I really learn the ropes, I probably will :) ).

I'll wait until this second round of snow hits tomorrow night and I'll take some shots of the Amish country!

EarthQuake

02-20-2010, 07:12 PM

So after much thought, i've been looking at lots and lots of older 24mm, 28mm, 35mm nikon, vivitar, etc lenses in nikon mounts, m42 mounts, all around the $40-60 range or so, and then + $10-20 for adapters. I was pretty set on spending my birthday cash on this sort of setup, and really trying to learn to master one of these old lenses, i even got a cheap-o split image focus screen off ebay to help the process(which is cool, albeit harder than i thought it would be to get food results).

Anyway, after all this thinking and research into lens types, different mounts, different converters, it really appeared that there would be a good chance i would still just end up with something that didn't work, or i was too stupid to use, and just really isnt the grand value i had dreamt it up to be in my head. My wife became the voice of reason here and pretty much told me i should just get what i want, which was the EF 28mm 2.8, i thought that it would be trouble to get it for under $200, but i found one and won it today for $145 shipped! I'm super pumped, i think that is a pretty damn good deal, and am excited to get nasty with it....

Entity

02-20-2010, 08:28 PM

Bjørn Rørslett's site is a great place to check out lens reviews, especially older ai/ais lenses.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1

Alot of mf nikkor lenses outperform the newer af ones, and if you can swallow manual focusing then they're great to use :)

LoTekK

03-31-2010, 10:46 PM

Necro!

My girlfriend got herself a 550D while I was in San Francisco, and I've been playing with it over the past week. I'd like to get a couple of nice lenses soon, but for now the kit lens that came with it (EF 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS) is proving to be surprisingly effective. A bonus (arguable?) is that it has pretty nice bokeh. Going to the zoo tomorrow, though, so I'll definitely be wishing I had a telephoto.

One question, though: is it possible to shoot RAW at a lower resolution than the 18MP of the sensor? The image quality is surprisingly clean at lower ISOs, and still somewhat workable at 3200 and 6400, but I honestly don't need the full 18MP, and at 25mb a pop for the RAW files, it gets a bit overwhelming.

Entity

04-01-2010, 03:31 AM

I know higher end canon models offer sRAW, you might try looking for that under the IQ section.

LoTekK

04-01-2010, 03:50 AM

Durn, did a quick check online an. The 550d doesn't have sraw. Guess I'm stuck either dealing with ~25mb raws or using jpeg. :/

mrsincredible

04-23-2010, 06:26 PM

Just wanted to bump this old thread up to say thanks to all the previous posters. I haven't had a chance to read through all 7 pages yet but it helped me decide which DSLR to buy. I'm a complete photography noob and I only want it to take nicer photos of the kids with. The husband and I hope it will cure me from wanting to hire an expensive pro to take their photos, haha. They grow so fast, if I could afford it, I'd have a photog come twice a year!

Anyway, just wanted to say thanks to Ben Mathis in particular. I ended up buying a refurb 30D direct from Canon and a 30D kit w/ 18-55mm lens. Can't decide which to open! I plan to keep the other one unopened and re-sell it. I am waiting on my 50mm prime to arrive from ebay so the Kit is calling me so that I can use it right away! The difference was $100 for the kit w/ lens.