General dSLR advice

[Playdo]

My advice:

1. Don't be swayed by people who heavily advocate a certain brand. From past experience, they'll usually have little or no experience with others.

2. Write a list of the most important features that you want in a camera. (microadjustment, pentaprism etc) - then find a camera that covers most of these bases, within your price range.

3. You're buying into the brand, so if you're serious about photography, then it can be very expensive. Take a look into the recent history of the company's cameras and spot their business plan. Also look into the issues people/pros have had with brands. This will tell a lot.

5. Write a list of what lenses you want. In reference to an earlier post, some zooms are sharper than some primes, so you'd need to learn to read and use mtf graphs (ie photodo)

6. If you want to know about sensor quality, use a site like DxOMark.

7. Lastly, I've come across so much regurgitated information and cr*p on the internet about cameras. Take what you read with a pinch of salt and find a good reputable source to back it up.

[poopinmymouth]

Found this today. ISO 12,800. This shows what I mean about Nex and X100 destroying the M4/3 at higher ISO's

http://www.heise.de/foto/imgs/13/6/5/1/8/5/8/Vergleich-ISO12800.jpg-96e8e76b89c84b72.jpeg

[EarthQuake]

christ that X100 looks amazing, thats like iso 800 on my 350d, WTF

[poopinmymouth]

christ that X100 looks amazing, thats like iso 800 on my 350d, WTF

I get mine Sunday.

[disanski]

Then you could probably make a test and compare it with the 5d ? :) Looks great any way.

[EarthQuake]

I get mine Sunday.

I heard they just started production back up after all the terrible shit that happened in japan, did you have to pay an arm and a leg to get one?

[poopinmymouth]

Then you could probably make a test and compare it with the 5d ? :) Looks great any way.

already planning to. x100 vs 5d with 35mmL and with 35mm f/2 lenses. The big thing that hasn't been tested yet is dynamic range. I want to take a very contrasty scene with both at ISO 200, then both at ISO 1600, and see how much highlight and shadow headroom exists. The 5D has delightful dynamic range, and a very flat falloff, 1600 is only 3 stops less than 100, whereas most cameras lose up to half or more the dynamic range from min to max.

[poopinmymouth]

I heard they just started production back up after all the terrible shit that happened in japan, did you have to pay an arm and a leg to get one?

Nope. It's quite a story though!

1. User posts that he is considering buying an X100 from his local shop or a GH2
2. I PM him asking which shop has them in stock.
3. He answers the store's name in New Zealand (Paul's Camera)
4. I email Paul's, asking if they have any unclaimed ones.
5. They tell me they have 10 coming in, with only 4 reserved, they can easily hold one.
6. They email me the next morning that it went down to only 5 they were getting, only one free.
7. I shove my CC as hard as I can into my cat-5 cable to get the money to them so that 5th one is mine.
8. They don't ship internationally so it goes to my friend at Weta, who remails it to an address in San Francisco.
9. Said address is that of the boyfriend of an Icelandic friend, she is visiting him.
10. She is bringing it back in her luggage so I don't have to pay the 27% VAT on electronics.
11. I shower her with cookies and other baked goods in thanks.

With the shipping reimbursement to my friend, it actually came out to exactly 1,200 USD total. But an 8 gb UHS-I card was 130 USD here when it's like 40 bux in the US.

[EarthQuake]

Also that nex looks damn good at 12800 compared to the 500d, if there were decent lens options it would make a tought desicion for me with my next body, as I plan on getting a 500/550D... But I dont really see being able to replace my EF lenses with a nex, not for a few years atleast. Blah

[Paul Pepera]

That comparison image looks incredible; I too am curious to see some comparison shots between the X100 and 5D.

[poopinmymouth]

http://www.poopinmymouth.com/net/pics/me/x100.jpg

[poopinmymouth]

That comparison image looks incredible; I too am curious to see some comparison shots between the X100 and 5D.

Quicky: http://www.x100forum.com/index.php?/topic/447-5d-vs-x100-dynamic-range/

[disanski]

Look at that smile :) Congrats for the new toy. Thanks for the link with the shots from the 5D and the X100. Images from the x100 look fantastic :) damn it :) . I would love to see more when you have some :)

[poopinmymouth]

Here are a few more full sized images. 2 of them at ISO 3200. I can't believe how little noise there is.

http://myx100year.blogspot.com/2011/04/few-more.html

[Prophecies]

Wow that Fuji x100 looks incredible! Too bad I can't spend that much money!
I just started looking into getting a new DSLR. I'm pretty serious about it, so I want to make the most informed decision possible!

I was looking at the Nikon D3100, D5100, or the Canon T2i. Now, the D5100 is sorta just out of my price range, but if it's really worth those extra dollars, I'll find the means to get it. The Canon T2i as well as the Nikon D3100 are more within my price range.
Not quite sure what to get though!

[EarthQuake]

I would say the T2i, I doubt you'll notice a difference between the T2i and the D5100, and I lean towards Canon's lens selection, which IMO is the best. Either is a good choice however. Also, the D5100 has no built in lens motor, so it will only work with the latest DX lenses. This means when you compare lens selection, a Canon T2i would have like 5-10x as many lenses available to use.

For fun I went to Best Buy the other day to compare:
550D
60D
7D

Just for the hell of it, and because I plan on getting the 550D and wanted to check it out, and make sure it really was a significant upgrade over my 350D. I left with the impression that the 60D and 7D are fucking amazing, but for the price and all features considered, the 550D is a steal if you can get a decent price on a used body. The ergonomics and controls on the 550D seem a decent amount better than the 350D, something I was a little worried about. All things consider, the 550D has a decent weight to it. The 60D feels great but I fear would be a little tiresome holding all day, and the 7D feels amazing, but it certainly is quite heavy.

On the 550D, the things that immediately stick out over the 350D; A bit more comfortable grip with a nice gripy leatherish material instead of the smooth plastic, dedicated ISO button!!!, and of course the wonderful high res LCD, which is great for image playback and live view - really a big improvement when trying to manual focus over using the viewfinder. The seemingly instant autofocus was impressive as well, not sure how much this has to do with the body, but it was only the 18-55mm kit lens attached.

I also checked out all of the mirrorless cameras, the Nex, Lumix, Oly, and Samsung, and came away decidedly unimpressed by all of them. They are all too large to really be considered a compact camera, and the controls and interface on them all suck too much to seriously replace a proper dSLR. I was thinking about just sticking with my 350D, and picking up a mirrorless kit for more casual shooting, but actually trying these cameras out has really put me off on the entire concept.

I would really love to see one of these super compact SLRs with much better controls and ergonomics. Well, I guess that is sort of the idea with the X100? Oh well, still way out of the price range.

[Prophecies]

Interesting! Now, is there a difference between the 550D Rebel T2i, and the Eos T2i? I keep seeing both names and it's confusing the hell out of me!

Thanks for the well thought-out response! :)

[EarthQuake]

No, the camera is the Canon EOS Digital Rebel T2i/550D, same camera. It can be confusing, but I like to refer to the model number, ie 350D, 400D, 450D, 500D, 550D, because when you start calling them the XT, XTi, XSI, T1i, T2i. It easier to keep track of which is the newer one by following the XXXD number.

Oh and really, after reading reviews and sensor data and all of that stuff, really between a similar Nikon and Canon camera, the biggest deciding factor should be to simply go to a store(like bestbuy or whatever) where you can try them both out, see how they feel in your hands and which one's controls make more sense.

[EarthQuake]

Yeah, I keep a UV filter on my 30mm 1.4, because the front element is fucking huge, and it cost $415 =P. Don't really bother with other lenses. Its really nice to just clean the UV filter if it gets smudged instead of the actual lens. Also I did some tests and didn't notice any difference in quality with/without the filter on.

The 85mm 1.8 will be my next lens purchase I think, but it will be a while before I can afford it. Seems like the perfect portrait lens.

[disanski]

I added a touch of noise here .. (because i can LOL) next time when i have time I will upload image with less pp. It could be just in my head and I can't compare it with any other lens because the only lens I have used was the cheap 50mm but it feels like it gives me so much more resolution ... I dont know how to explain it. It is still the same camera and just 12 megapixels but it feels like I changed the body too :) not sure if that makes sense.
I can't afford it either but I had to use my friends that were coming back from the states to bring me one because here is like 150$ more for a new one and if I did not get that one I would not have gotten anything . Tuna cans FTW for the next few weeks :)

[EarthQuake]

Well, that Canon EF 85mm 1.8 lens is known to be just about the sharpest lens you can get, this side of the 50/85mm 1.2, and even then, I dont think there is any real difference between sharpness with those lenses and yours. Just speed, weight, build quality and that fancy red stripe.

[poopinmymouth]

Yeah, I keep a UV filter on my 30mm 1.4, because the front element is fucking huge, and it cost $415 =P. Don't really bother with other lenses. Its really nice to just clean the UV filter if it gets smudged instead of the actual lens. Also I did some tests and didn't notice any difference in quality with/without the filter on.

The 85mm 1.8 will be my next lens purchase I think, but it will be a while before I can afford it. Seems like the perfect portrait lens.

I don't use a filter on my 35L, 85 1.8, or ever on any glass. Just saying. I don't pay a lot for nice lenses to shit up the optics with a crappy piece of glass, and I'm not willing to pay for the ones that are nice enough not to degrade the quality (does it really make sense to put a 200 dollar filter on a 400 dollar lens?). The coating on the front of a lens is ultra strong. I clean with my t-shirt and some breath. If I can do that to a 1,200 dollar lens and not worry about a filter, it's silly to do it on one 1/3 that cost.

What I do instead, is make sure I don't drop my expensive equipment.

[EarthQuake]

Yeah, its cool man, I know you hate filters. Its pretty easy to get small scratches and cleaning marks even on good coatings, so I would prefer to avoid cleaning the glass itself often. As someone who buys/sells a lot of stuff on eBay, I'm always thinking resale value. I know some minor cleaning marks aren't likely to affect my photos, but they will affect what I can resell the lens for, so to me this is important.

I'm not trying to be the guy who tells you every lens must have a filter, just that I have one on my 30mm and I've never had a situation where it was a problem. Like I said, I did some tests with and without the filter and couldn't see any noticeable difference, its not like I've taped metal screening over my lens or something.

I realize a UV filter is not going to help if I drop my camera down the stairs, and I too, simply will avoid doing this instead of relying on filters. However, it can prevent minor damage to the glass from excessive cleaning or small bumps. Its also nice to simply leave your lens cap off all day, and not worry about it, as apposed to needing to remember to take off and put back on every time you pick up/put down the camera, this becomes pretty annoying.

The "UV filters wont protect your lens when it gets hit by a truck!" argument is sort of silly. Really, if we're simply being reasonable, a UV filter isn't likely to protect your lens from major damage, and it also isn't likely to have any real effect on the image quality of your photos, so to hear these extreme YES/NO viewpoints to the uv issue, its all just a bit excessive.

However, even though I see some good use with filters, I wouldn't ever pay money for them, as I get enough free with random gear.

[poopinmymouth]

How is it easy to get cleaning marks? I've never gotten one. Do you use sandpaper?

http://heeen.de/blog/uvfilter-kitlens.jpg

I never pass up an excuse to dispel this myth that one needs to buy UV filters. That's great that you get them for free with random gear, but how many other people reading this thread are functioning as a lens-pawn-shop and can say the same? One cheap UV filter per lens is still a chunk of change, and one quality UV filter that doesn't affect the image (much) per lens is the price of another lens.

I too leave my lens cap off all day and don't worry about it, because even with the cap on, I don't let my camera swing into things that could damage it.

[EarthQuake]

So first, yeah, I use WD-40 and a dremmel tool to clean my lenses, I find it works well to really grind off that top layer of debris.

Now seriously, as far as scratches and cleaning marks go, let me break it down like this.

A good majority of lenses that I buy, be it used or new, come with filters. The lenses I buy that do not come with filters are, lets say, 20X(made up number here, as virtually all used lenses I purchase that come with filters attached will never have scratches) more likely to have scratches and or light cleaning marks. Does not having a filter mean your lens is going to get scratched to shit? Of course not, but having a filter certainly means it is much less likely that it will. This is not superstition, but instead actual fact, backed up by loads of experience dealing with hundreds of lenses. To say a filter will never protect your lens better than not having a filter, is simply asinine.

Some really good lens buying advice is this, when looking for used lenses:
A. Lens, with caps, and filter
B. Lens, with caps
C. Lens, with no caps

A is going to give an exponentially higher rate of getting perfect glass as B, B as C.

Now, as far as price, like I said I would never pay extra for a filter, or if I did, certainly not any sizable amount. I am not the only creature capable of doing this however, as a good amount of used and new gear will come with free filters. If you find a lens that does not come with a free filter, keep looking as there is a very good chance you'll be able to find one that does, and very likely for not any extra money, sometimes for less. When I purchased my 30mm 1.4, it came with a filter set, and was by far the cheapest price I could find for the lens. It would have cost me more to buy a lens without a filter, so really, anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence and patients can find a lens that comes with a free uv filter.

Honestly, its not hard to give sound, reasonable advice when it comes to uv filters. I mean really, just try it:

UV Filter advice.
A. Do not pay(much) for UV filters, you can often get them free with new or used equipment.
B. UV filters may degrade image quality, so it is best to test them out and only use them if you are comfortable with the end result.
C. UV filters will always protect your lens better than not having a UV filter.
D. UV filters may be more prone to flare, so just as you would use a lens hood in certain situations, you may want to take off your uv filter when shooting into a bright light source.


NEVER USE FILTERS THEY RUIN IMAGE QUALITY!

and

ALWAYS USE FILTERS UNLESS YOU WANT TO RUIN YOUR LENS!

Are both equally terribly pieces of advice.

[disanski]

:) I am only being protective to my new baby :) I might just get a hood and forget about it! :)

[EarthQuake]

UV filters are like condoms, sure it feels great not to use them, but when you knock some girl up, or get the clap, you'll certainly wish you had one on.

[EarthQuake]

Ok, got some time to do a quick test. Here i'm testing:

Basic shot
Detail (50% center crop)
Strong backlight

All wide open @ 1.4, and at 8.0

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/499159/uvcompare.jpg

This is with a dirt cheap, terrible, dirty uv filter that has fingerprints and smudges on it, really the worse case scenario. I struggle to see any real actual difference in these shots that would improve or degrade the quality of my shot, with or without the filter. The results are slightly different, and I even prefer the UV filtered shots in some cases. I'm actually surprised to see the glare with the UV filter on is only a small amount higher, but again barely noticeable. I'm sure if I'm shooting directly into the sun, there would be a more noticeable difference(and I may do that later =P) however, I generally avoid shooting directly into the sun, and I think most everyone else does too.

Detail rendition is absolutely the same with or without, you'd have to view these at 800% to spot any differences in resolution. Again let me stress this, this is a "Opteka High Definition UV filter" generic and as cheap as them come, and if you would look through the thing you'd want to throw it in the trash, yet, there is very very little practical difference between using it or not.

100% crops for the mentally unstable out there:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/499159/uv1.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/499159/uv3.jpg

[Edit] Overcast cloudy day today, will have to try the sunlight test another day.

[disanski]

Interesting to see this EQ. Thanks for taking time to put this together. Personally I would never sit down and start testing stuff :) Good to see you were doing this as you had the object back lit which should bring on the errors. I read about this before and I was thinking I could take the UV filter off when I am shooting against the light, but not sure how do I feel about removing it and bringing it back on very often, sometimes I dont really have time to think about all of this. Even after seeing your tests I am still thinking the hood might actually do a better job- does not affect the IQ and it protects it from random hits :)
well about the cleaning .. yeaa might have to be just as careful as always.

[3DLee]

I'm bumping this thread rather than posting a new one as my question is pretty relevant. Also, sweet mercy this thread has a ton of great info in it!

I've been rocking high-end point & shoots for a long while now, but I'm taking a digital photography class to finish out my degree over the summer and I may be able to squeeze a little money out of my financial aid to buy an entry-level DSLR.

A few notes: I'm not a photographer, but I do enjoy photography. I do not plan on making money off of photography. I am a college student with a tight budget. :) I've always used point and shoots or nice 35mm SLR's.

What do you all think of the Nikon D3100 as an entry-level DSLR? The decent video is also a huge plus in my book.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D3100-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B003ZYF3LO/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1G8WWV833ZIMC&colid=1NXKY03VN760A

[EarthQuake]

I'm bumping this thread rather than posting a new one as my question is pretty relevant. Also, sweet mercy this thread has a ton of great info in it!

I've been rocking high-end point & shoots for a long while now, but I'm taking a digital photography class to finish out my degree over the summer and I may be able to squeeze a little money out of my financial aid to buy an entry-level DSLR.

A few notes: I'm not a photographer, but I do enjoy photography. I do not plan on making money off of photography. I am a college student with a tight budget. :) I've always used point and shoots or nice 35mm SLR's.

What do you all think of the Nikon D3100 as an entry-level DSLR? The decent video is also a huge plus in my book.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D3100-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B003ZYF3LO/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1G8WWV833ZIMC&colid=1NXKY03VN760A


Well, what is your budget? The smart advice is to skip the latest features, like video, and get a camera body in the $200-400 range and spend the rest of your budget on a good lens(es). You can easily sell and upgrade to a better body, and keep your lenses, in a year or two if you feel the need for more features. For a start-up dSLR body, video is likely a bit excessive.

Is there a reason you're thinking Nikon?

The Canon 500D or 550D are good alternatives to the Nikon D3100/5100, and IMO Canon has a better lens lineup.The D3100/5100 only have support for the newest Nikon lenses with built in focus motors, which may be an issue trying to find older, yet quality 1st/3rd party lenses. Canon on the other hand, has been making high quality AF lenses with nice built in focus motors since about 1988, so there is a huge collection of old and new Canon lenses that will work on a new Canon dSLR. For this reason I caution going with Nikon, but Nikon makes great cameras, and you'll likely be able to find enough compatible lenses.

[disanski]

Hey there :) this must be a great camera for you, however we have talked about this before and the one minus that bugs me is the no auto focus motor in the body, which means you are not going to be able to use a lot of the lens that does not have it in them, or you will have to focus manually. How about a used D90 for price near that one.. may be- not to sure for how much does it sell now. If that does not bother you this camera is not bad at all. Try to think a bit in advance and decide what do you like to shoot- more portraits, landscapes,may be sports - then choose your lens and then see if it will work with the body. Let us know if you have any more specific questions :)

[Prophecies]

I just bought the Nikon D5100, and I'm quite literally blown away. I was really hesitating between the Canon 550D and the Nikon. The Nikon just felt better in my hands. It's a personal matter though. I did like how much bigger the Canon's Viewfinder was though. But regardless, I'm quite happy with my purchase. Also, according to most of the reviews I've read, the Nikon has slightly more lens choices than the Canon.

I'm actually VERY impressed with the specs on the D5100 as well... for the price, it's pretty damn impressive.

[disanski]

At the end of the day if you are happy with it that is all that matters :) you could have gotten the "better" camera but then may be you would have been unhappy because you did not listen your inside voice :) Start showing us some photos now :)

[3DLee]

Whoops, I forgot to mention my budget! It's pretty much $600 USD tops for the camera/basic lens, and hopefully $200 in June or so for a better lens (maybe a 50-200). I didn't really have a reason to go straight for Nikon other than the price looked good on the 3100 for the feature set.

Thanks for the advice guys!

Edit: I forgot to mention that this past semester I've been shooting 35mm black and white on a Canon EOS 650 with manual-focus only, so I've actually come to rather enjoy manual focus. :)

[EarthQuake]

I just bought the Nikon D5100, and I'm quite literally blown away. I was really hesitating between the Canon 550D and the Nikon. The Nikon just felt better in my hands. It's a personal matter though. I did like how much bigger the Canon's Viewfinder was though. But regardless, I'm quite happy with my purchase. Also, according to most of the reviews I've read, the Nikon has slightly more lens choices than the Canon.

I'm actually VERY impressed with the specs on the D5100 as well... for the price, it's pretty damn impressive.

If you count total Nikon lenses that may be true, however; many Nikon AF lenses will not work on the low end Nikon bodies, so even if Nikon has 10% total more lenses than Canon, if you can't use 70% of them on your 3100/5100, its sort of a moot point. =P

[EarthQuake]

Whoops, I forgot to mention my budget! It's pretty much $600 USD tops for the camera/basic lens, and hopefully $200 in June or so for a better lens (maybe a 50-200). I didn't really have a reason to go straight for Nikon other than the price looked good on the 3100 for the feature set.

Thanks for the advice guys!

Edit: I forgot to mention that this past semester I've been shooting 35mm black and white on a Canon EOS 650 with manual-focus only, so I've actually come to rather enjoy manual focus. :)

Honestly with that budget, I would try to find a $200-400 used body, a 50mm 1.8 lens or 35mm 1.8/2.0(Nikon/Canon), and a 28mm 2.8 or something now or a little later. I would probably get the 35mm, or the 50mm and 28mm(later). The better quality lenses there would provide you with much better tools, the 18-55mm and 50-200mm lenses for either system are generally worthless, unless you happen to get them for cheap as hell, and use them in addition to some solid fast primes. The kit zooms have uses, but certainly not as your primary lenses.

I started with a dirt cheap Canon 350D body, and only now that I have a good selection of lenses am I in the market to upgrade to a body with more features. Buying a camera body with all the latest features but using shitty lenses on it isn't ever a good idea.

As far as enjoying manual focus goes, I get what you're saying, but with the small and Dim viewfinders of modern consumer digital SLRs, trust me, you will not enjoy it anywhere near as much. An OM-1 feels about 10x better manually focusing than a consumer crop dSLR. Modern AF lenses simply are not really designed to be used as AF lenses, so most cheap lenses will really lack in that area(poor focus feel, short focus throw, etc).

Also, it would be better to simply have the option of manual focus(which every Canon lens offers) than be forced to use it, which some Nikon+lens combinations will require.

Nikon is still digging itself out from the poor choice to go with in-body focus motors back in the 80's and 90's, and only recently putting those focus motors into thier newest lenses.

At the end of the day, I would suggest going to best buy or something, and picking up a Canon T2i(550D) and a 3100, and seeing how they feel. Feel is pretty important, and Nikon bodies tend to have a little more bulk, that as a Canon user I am a bit jealous of.

[poopinmymouth]

Echoing the older nicer body with prime lenses. You think you want a kit lens zoom and a new dslr with googads and beebops, but if you are interested in actual photography, you're better served with a XXd canon and some primes.

[3DLee]

Great idea about checking out some local stores to see how they feel, I may do that some this week. If you guys were to pick a body in the $500 range (new or used), what would be your picks?

I was tempted to say that the googads and beebops are pretty important to me, but in the end I could just get an HD video camera down the road. I guess if I'm throwing this kind of money into a camera I should probably get one that primarily takes good pictures. :)

[disanski]

May be Canon 40d but it depends again what do you want to shoot with it. for that price I dont really see many options. Perhaps Nikon d80 is near that price.

[EarthQuake]

Cameras near that price:

Nikon D80(you can get a body for $350-450 used)
Canon 40D($450-500)
Nikon D3100($450-500)
Canon T1i, this actually has 720P video($500-550 used)
Canon T2i($550-650)

These are eBay prices for used body only setups.

The 40D is going to offer better ergonomics, controls, faster shutter speeds, and weight than the T1i/T2i, but both will offer better low light performance, better high resolution screen, and more features like video etc.

I think the 40D and the D80 are about on par.

Instead of buying an HD video camera down the line, the easiest thing will be, buy a $4-500 body today, wait a year or two, sell it for $300, and then pick up a Canon 60D or Nikon D90 down the line when the prices are down to reasonable levels.

If you really want it all, right now, I would say just find a used 550D, as a lot of people really seem to like this camera, I know I know, it isn't a semi-pro XXD body, but that doesn't mean its shit! =P

Try to remember that you can easily sell your camera body(on eBay or even craigslist) and recoup a decent portion of the cost as long as its in good condition. So do not think of the body as something you're going to have for 10 years. When you put it this way, I would also consider getting a Canon 20D, and spend the extra $2-300 you save on another lens or two. For someone just starting out with a DSLR, the 20D is no slouch. However, I would personally recommend getting something with liveview, which all of the above cameras have.

[Prophecies]

The Nikon D3100 can film in HD. Great camera for the price. You can get a D3100 + lens for the price of the canon 550d T2i as well. All depends on what you want, really.

[EarthQuake]

Yeah, and honestly, the 550D and the D3100 have better sensors than the 40D, so.... It really comes down to what feels comfortable in your hands, and if you can deal with the worse(but again, perfectly usable) controls of the lower end bodies.

[EarthQuake]

So, when looking at nikon lenses with focus motors, you've got about 60 lenses to chose from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nikon_F-mount_lenses_with_integrated_autofocus_motors

This seams like plenty, until we start to look at affordable(less than $400) primes, the list then becomes:

35mm 1.8 DX
50mm 1.4 G
50mm 1.8 G
.... and that is fucking-it. This is pathetic, I would never recommend anyone get a Nikon body that doesn't have a focus motor. These cameras are for noobs who will buy the camera with the kit lens, and never consider another lens(or just get another cheap kit tele zoom).

On the other hand, canon prime lenses under or around $400

20mm 2.8
24mm 2.8
28mm 1.8
28mm 2.8
35mm 2.0
50mm 1.4
50mm 1.8
50mm 2.5 macro
85mm 1.8
100mm 2.0
135mm 2.8 soft focus

Virtually every lens you would need for 99% of standard photography, excluding ultra-wide and long telephotos.

When we start talking sharp, fast primes that you can use on a consumer body, Canon absolutely murders Nikon(and everyone else), because they've kept the same lens spec for over 20 years. The higher cost of a Canon body is completely absolutely definitely positively worth it, over a bottom line Nikon body, because of the available lenses.

As a Canon user, I pine for Pentax's excellent low ISO and dynamic range, Sony's in body stabilization, and Nikon's ergonomics on lower end bodies, however; the last thing I will ever pine for is glass with a Canon system. Nikon is equivalent at best(on semi-pro bodies and up) and just totally out classed on consumer bodies. At the end of the day, your lenses are absolutely the most important part of your camera.

[poopinmymouth]

As a Canon user, I pine for Pentax's excellent low ISO and dynamic range, Sony's in body stabilization, and Nikon's ergonomics on lower end bodies, however; the last thing I will ever pine for is glass with a Canon system. Nikon is equivalent at best(on semi-pro bodies and up) and just totally out classed on consumer bodies. At the end of the day, your lenses are absolutely the most important part of your camera.

Sony's in body IS I'll give you, but while the K5 is great, it doesn't really destroy canon's equivalent priced offerings, and it's really only because it's using the latest sensor, Canon's next round of bodies using their new sensors will again catch up or even surpass. The weather sealing of the Pentax stuff is envy worthy, but they have a shitty lens line up for crop bodies if you like fast primes.

[EarthQuake]

Yeah really, everything there I mention that I "Pine" for is pretty minor. I'll go even further here, Pentax's lens lineup sucks, PERIOD. =P

Really to me, when I rate available lenses per system it goes:
1. Canon
2. Sony/Minolta, this will seem like crazy talk to some, but the cheap as shit prices you can get on Minolta Maxxum lenses is really a gold mine. I mean you can get a 50mm 1.4 Maxxum for like $175, a 28mm 2.8 for $125, 135mm 2.8 for under $300, etc. As well as a really good used third party market, where the same lenses sell for other mounts at 50-100% more.
3. Nikon
4. Pentax

Note: I'm talking lenses for entry level bodies here, and budget friendly lenses. When we start talking "best lens for any money" its totally different, but then you're thinking about Leica or Hasselblad gear anyway, not Nikon/Canon. =P

[3DLee]

I've been polling friends, freelance photographers, amateurs and photography professors about entry level DSLRs for the last week. What I've found is that opinions are evenly divided right down the middle in the Canon vs. Nikon argument, haha.

After some careful consideration, I'm leaving towards the Nikon 3100 again. A friend of mine has a number of low-cost Nikon lenses that he enjoys using despite having more expensive ones now, so I'm more comfortable knowing that a $250 lens won't be worthless.

[EarthQuake]

Let me say it again, noooooo primes for the low end nikon other than 35mm 18, 50mm 1.4, 50mm 1.8 available under like $500!

This is hugeeeee. It basically means you're stuck with only "normal" lenses, and slow crappy zoom lenses.

I mean, this isn't like an opinion here, I'm not saying "Oh I prefer canon because the way it feels" literally, the lens selection for Nikon on these low end bodies is *trash*. This isn't even a subjective thing, just a fact.

So asking a freelance photographer if he likes Nikon, knowing full well he'd never touch a low end Nikon body, is sort of a useless endeavor. Sure, he likes his $2000 Nikon body just fine. =P But that is moot.

If you really need to go Nikon, do yourself a favor and spend $350-400 on a used D80 body, or $600-650 on D90 body.

[Prophecies]

Not everyone has the money to have a bunch of lenses though, EQ. I hesitated between the Canon 550d, and the Nikon D5100. Ultimately went with the D5100 because it felt better in my hands, and the stock lens was better as well. Once I do decide to upgrade, I know I'm going to invest in something great, because the D5100 is an incredible body for the price.

I understand your opinion, and you're clearly correct. Canon does have more Lower-cost lenses available. But it's like I said, when I do upgrade for new lenses, I'll be putting a bit more money than that into a new one, so it's a moot point. Once you get over the 400$ range, I'm pretty sure it narrows down to personal preference.

Not many people like go start of with used either! I personally don't mind at all, but some people prefer to have something right out of the box.

[EarthQuake]

Well thats the whole thing, if you're a Nikon user, you've gotta pay like $800 or more on one zoom lens to get the quality of a couple cheap prime lenses, and even then many aren't compatible with these bodies. So, if you dont have the money for good lenses, a low end Nikon body is a bad idea, as like I keep saying, there is a very poor selection of reasonable priced, fast sharp prime lenses for low end Nikon.

I'm not saying that with the low end Nikon bodies, you cant find EXPENSIVE lenses, thats sort of the opposite.

I have nothing against Nikon, just the few cheap bodies that do not have focus motors.

[EarthQuake]

Look at it this way, here are some standard, high quality Nikon zooms, fast 2.8:
Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 $1000-1500
Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 $1500-2000

Now, when you look at nikon primes on low end, all you can get is 35mm and 50mm. On a low end body, you simply can not replace these lenses with primes.

So lets look at canon, you can get these fast normal zooms(these are also significantly cheaper than Nikon, keke):
Canon 17-55mm 2.8 $850-1250
Canon 24-70mm 2.8 $1000-1500

OR, if we take the magic number of $1250, we can replace these lenses with some super sharp, and fast primes. When you break it all down, cheaping out on a low end Nikon over a low end Canon, or a higher end Nikon, will cost you in lenses, it just doesn't make sense any way you cut it.

24mm 2.8 $325
35mm 2.0 $225
50mm 1.8 $125
85mm 1.8 $325

Grand total $1000.
You could even get the 50mm 1.4 here instead of the 1.8 and still be about the same cost as a quality zoom, so, with Canon you just have much, much better options, regardless of price.


If all you want is a low end body, and a 18-55mm kit lens, then... None of this matters, brand doesn't matter, its not even remotely worth discussing, but if you want anything more than that, serious consideration must be made.

If you just want one really nice general purpose zoom, and hate the idea of primes, well then maybe a low end Nikon body is moot. But even in this case, for your money, you're better off going Canon. To the tune of about $500, or the cost difference between a D3100 and Canon 60D. =P

[3DLee]

For what I plan on doing with my camera, the only prime lens that I would probably ever get would be a 50mm. Other than that, I think something like this would cover almost everything that I want to do with it:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-VR-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B000O161X0/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=IUIS8Z41YEQJ7&colid=1NXKY03VN760A

I really appreciate all the great insight!

[EarthQuake]

Well no matter what you do, you better get the 50mm 1.8. =P

You may realize the error of your ways after you get that lens, and compare it to the cheap kit zooms. Or not, if you don't, you'll save yourself a good deal of money.

[poopinmymouth]

Zoom lenses suck. Price, technology, and creatively. Get prime lenses. A 35 equiv, a 50 equiv, and and an 85 equiv, all f/2 or faster.

I've married myself to a 35mm f/2 for a year and am not shooting with anything else.

That f/4-5.6 lens is going to suck in anything other than broad daylight. You'll see.

[Entity]

I haven't shot with an f/4 zoom lens in ages. Those were dark times..dark times indeed.

[ZacD]

I'm looking into getting a camera soon, it needs to be pretty portable and not too large, but I have no idea where to start looking or what to look for, help?

[ChrisG]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

whow,

[ChrisG]

I have had my 50mm 1.8 on my om now for about 2 years and have never had it off longer than a few days. Bought a 135mm recently but the 50mm is so versitile and portable I find it hard to switch.

Im considering getting a 35 or 28mm for my om, anyone any ideas on which?

[3DLee]

I haven't shot with an f/4 zoom lens in ages. Those were dark times..dark times indeed.

OK, this made me laugh. The main reason I'm considering the f/4 70-200mm is because I'm planning on continuing my historic railroad hunt this summer, and some areas that I want to shoot are on private property so I'll have to shoot from the road. I'll be outside, so hopefully it'll work well enough.

I think you guys have sold me on the prime 55 though. :)

[ZacD]

I'm thinking about getting a camera like this
http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/canon-powershot-s95/4505-6501_7-34154931.html?tag=contentBody;similarProds

[EarthQuake]

The S95 is a great choice if you really need a compact camera, however as I've wrote up before, it is still a small sensor compact camera, and there is really only so much you can do with it. Its also pretty near the cost of a low end dSLR as well.

Personally I would recommend a Sony Nex-3 or 5, Or Olympus/Panasonic m4/3 if you really want something compact, but with a high quality large sensor, that is competitive to a full size SLR.

I would check back a few pages, because this has come up a few times in this thread.

Is there a specific reason you want something as compact as the S95? The thing to understand is that with these super small compact sensor cameras, you're really limited when it comes to the bokeh(out of focus background) effect that you get with a proper large sensor camera, so artistically, its a lot more limiting. If all you want to do is take landscape shots or texture reference photos, that sort of wide depth of field can be good, but for a lot of other types of photography, it is a big negative. Specifically, creating any sort of "isolation" when shooting portraits/people is very difficult.

Not to mention the slow, soft, unreplacable lenses, poor ergonomics and controls, and generally poor image quality and noise performance when compared to a DSLR. If you consider all of this stuff, including the high cost of what is still a small sensor point&shoot camera, and still want an S95 or similar super compact camera, the Canon S90/S95 is a good choice.

[ZacD]

ideally I'd like something more like $300. Larry wants something we can easily bring to parties, I'd like a slr for textures and experimenting with real photography, so we'll meet somewhere in-between.

[EarthQuake]

I assume you already have some sort of basic compact camera, really, if you want something compact for parties I would recommend just sticking with that. If you dont understand the differences between a basic P&S and a S95, you probably do not want to drop $3-400 on one.

And then get a used dSLR + 50mm lens for the $300-350 range for the big boy stuff. You can pick up a used Canon 20D + EF 50mm 1.8 in that range.

Also, for parties and low light, a dSLR with a nice fast lens is going to be very useful. I take my dSLR and a couple lenses to parties, bars, etc, and never really feel like it is that big of a burden, however i'm not afraid to look like a dork with a big camera.

Saying you want cheap, small, and good... You'll only end up with 1 or 2 out of the 3. To meet somewhere inbetween, your best bet is a mirrorless camera like the NEX or olympus EP-1(which you can find with the pancake for $500). The EP-1 with the kit zoom is $400 on amazon too, its not as compact as the S95, but gives you a lot more options, you can upgrade to a better lens etc.

[Entity]

OK, this made me laugh. The main reason I'm considering the f/4 70-200mm is because I'm planning on continuing my historic railroad hunt this summer, and some areas that I want to shoot are on private property so I'll have to shoot from the road. I'll be outside, so hopefully it'll work well enough.

I think you guys have sold me on the prime 55 though. :)

The f/4 zooms are decent enough if you're shooting in good light, and they're compact too. It's usually the zooms with the variable apertures that churn on shoddy photos

[EarthQuake]

Nikon doesn't make a 70-200mm F4, so i'm pretty sure he means the 55-200mm 4-5.6(as he mentioned earlier). He could be talking about the 70-210mm F4 but, of course, this lens will not work on his camera, as he doesn't have an in body focus motor.

However, with the still life stuff he wants to shoot, a cheap tripod or monopod will be a good idea, so the slower/variable speed isnt that important. Also, you cant really get a cheap prime in those focal ranges, so its sort of moot.

[poopinmymouth]

I'm thinking about getting a camera like this
http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/canon-powershot-s95/4505-6501_7-34154931.html?tag=contentBody;similarProds

The s90 and s95 are great pocket cameras. You can get a DSLR BODY for around that price, but try to replicate the lens range and speed of the s90 and you're looking at double if not triple the price. A 28mm equivalent f/2 is gonna set you back at least 300-600 dollars for a crop body camera.

I shot with an s90 alongside a 5D+50mm lens in Vienna and when editing in post I could tell the difference, but the difference was surprisingly little for the price and size difference. I printed several of the s90 photos in a photo book alongside the 5D and no one else has ever commented on seeing a difference between images between the two (though I notice, hahah!)

A nex body is similar in size, but all the lenses are huge in comparison. If you're wanting something versatile and pocketable, you can't go wrong with the s90/95.

The difference between the s90 and the m4/3 offerings isn't enough imo. You have to go up to a Nex or a semi modern DSLR to see a significant noise and dynamic range improvement.

[poopinmymouth]

This seams like plenty, until we start to look at affordable(less than $400) primes, the list then becomes:

35mm 1.8 DX
50mm 1.4 G
50mm 1.8 G
.... and that is fucking-it. This is pathetic, I would never recommend anyone get a Nikon body that doesn't have a focus motor. These cameras are for noobs who will buy the camera with the kit lens, and never consider another lens(or just get another cheap kit tele zoom).

On the other hand, canon prime lenses under or around $400

20mm 2.8
24mm 2.8
28mm 1.8
28mm 2.8
35mm 2.0
50mm 1.4
50mm 1.8
50mm 2.5 macro
85mm 1.8
100mm 2.0
135mm 2.8 soft focus

Virtually every lens you would need for 99% of standard photography, excluding ultra-wide and long telephotos.



stealing this for another forum because it owns. Thanks.

[Prophecies]

Could someone shed some light on this for me? What exactly makes Zoom lens so bad? Aren't they more versatile than Prime lens? I mean, if I'm just going out to shoot whatever, I don't know what I'll come accross. This is great when doing nature photography, because I'll see birds, animals, and interesting flora. Wouldn't a Prime lens be terrible for this? I want to be able to zoom in as much as possible on an animal, so that I don't have to get too close! I'm assuming you'd just recommend a Telephoto lens in this case... right? Or am I completely off track?

In what situation would a Prime lens be at it's best? Portraits?

*edit*
I've been looking at the Nikon Prime Lens, there seems to be MANY available. But I'm confused on one point. There aren't many that have an actual Focus Motor, like you said, but all of them seem to have Auto-Focus. What's the difference?

[EarthQuake]

Zoom lenses are bad because of manufacturing. Zoom lenses are much more complex, requiring many more optical elements because of the simple fact that they offer a variable focal length. More complex glass leads to worse image quality, and slower lenses.

You can build high quality, reasonably fast( 2.8 ) zooms, however, these are VERY expensive, and generally will only offer equivalent quality to a prime lens.

A 2.8 lens is still a relatively slow lens, when you consider a cheap 1.8 lens is 1.5 stops faster, a 1.4 lens is 2 stops faster and a pro-series 1.2 lens(which you can buy for the cost of some pro zooms) is 2.5 stops faster.

Most cheap zooms are in the 3.5-5.6 range, and some cheap telephoto zooms are even slower, then you have to consider that most are too soft wide open, and you have to stop down 1-2 stops to get any sharpness. So we look at something like a kit 18-55mm, depending on the setting, you may need to stop down to 5.6-8 to get any sharpness, whereas on the EF 50mm 1.8, 2.2-4.5 is super sharp, and 1.8 is likely as sharp or sharper than a cheap zoom even at F8. So you're looking at 3-4 stop improvement here. This is why the 50mm 1.8 lens(of any system) is regarded as the best possible buy you could ever make. It is cheap, fast, and offers a simple construction and optical formula that leads to excellent image quality.

Slow zoom lenses also offer more limited bokeh, because of the small apertures, they let less light in, so there is a limit to how blurry your out of focus areas will become.

From a more theoretical standpoint, many say that zoom lenses make the photographer lazy, sure they seem convenient, but having a fixed focal length requires you to get more creative, and to actually get up and more around to reframe your shot, many people would agree that this is actually a good thing.


In what situation would a Prime lens be at it's best? Portraits?
In short, zooms are better for:

Convenience. And nothing else

Primes are better for:

Low light shooting
People who demand a high degree of sharpness
Anyone looking to do exaggerated depth of field effects

[EarthQuake]

I've been looking at the Nikon Prime Lens, there seems to be MANY available. But I'm confused on one point. There aren't many that have an actual Focus Motor, like you said, but all of them seem to have Auto-Focus. What's the difference?

Many Nikon lenses are designed without auto focus motors. This means they rely on the camera to have a little pin that goes into the lens and a motor inside the camera body to spin that pin to focus the lens. Low end Nikon camera bodies do not have this motor, so many many high quality Nikon lenses can not be used with auto focus on the cheap Nikon bodies. For this reason, it is highly advisable that you do not purchase a low end Nikon body, unless you know you'll never want any of these lenses.

For lenses to work on the low end Nikon bodies, they need to have focus motors built in them. What Canon has been doing since the 80s, but Nikon has only been doing relatively recently.

[disanski]

This is a good question :) I am not going to be able to answer fully because I don't know too much about the technical side of the lens but here is what I know:

Prime lens are faster than zoom lens (most of the time), they are cheaper in general because they are easier to make, also they are sharper then most zoom lens. Because they are faster lens the DOF is shallow which is something I am looking for when shooting portraits most of the time. I would say they are ideal for shooting still images or indoor sports.

Zoom lens are getting better and better and they do cost a bit more but it feels like you have 3 lens on the body all the time and you dont have to change them so often. If you are shooting births or animals prime lens is not going to be the best option. There are some zoom lens that are producing almost the same quality of images as the primes - just a lot more expensive.


edit : EQ was way faster :) and better with the description

[Prophecies]

Thanks for the description guys. So if I wanted to take some animal shots, I'm assuming you'd recommend telephoto?

(http://lenshero.com/lenses/nikon-d5100-built-in-focus-motor-prime-lens-for-nikon-dx)

[EarthQuake]

Yeah, the big drawback of primes is that you'll need to carry multiple lenses.

However as I noted before, you can generally afford:

24mm 2.8
35mm 2.0
50mm 1.8
85mm 1.8

For less than the cost of a quality 24-70mm 2.8, and the prime lenses are going to offer better characteristics at each focal length as well.

Canon makes a lovely 70-200mm 2.8L, but the thing is massive, and costs about $2500, when instead you could buy:

85mm 1.8 $325
135mm 2.0 $900
200mm 2.8 $600

Which again, will likely provide superior or equivalent performance at the noted focal lengths, be cheaper, and be a lot lighter(on the mounted, maybe not in your camera bag =P).

Now when it comes to cheap telephotos, you really do not have much choice, you've gotta go with a cheap zoom. I have a Canon EF 80-200mm 4.5-5.6 zoom lens that I keep around for the rare occasion I need 100-200mm range. I got this lens for about $20, so I love it in that regard. It runs like $60-120. You can get the 75-300mm for good prices too, or the 75-300mm IS, but a that price point($300) I would prefer the amazing 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0 lenses.

For me, over 100mm on a crop body is quite excessive. 100mm on my camera is 160mm, this is really a lot of reach, really anything passed this and you're going to need to lug around a tripod/monopod to keep it steady. I picked up a cheap generic 100mm 3.5 macro lens for about $75, that I love as a macro lens and a general purpose telephoto lens. I use that 80-200mm about 0.01% of the time. In fact, i've never really used it, but will be taking it will be taking it with me when I leave for Colorado in a week, I expect it will serve some use hiking in the mountains.

[disanski]

Yes, and depends what kind of animals and where, but most likely you will need something long :)

[EarthQuake]

Thanks for the description guys. So if I wanted to take some animal shots, I'm assuming you'd recommend telephoto?

(http://lenshero.com/lenses/nikon-d5100-built-in-focus-motor-prime-lens-for-nikon-dx)

Just to get this clear, as there is often confusion on this topic.

A prime lens is a fixed focal length. IE: 50mm 1.8
A zoom lens is a lens with a variable focal length. IE: 18-55mm 3.5-5.6

Neither of these have anything to do with wide/normal/telephoto

A fisheye is a lens that covers 180 degrees
A super wide is generally a lens in the 12-20mm range
A wide angle lens is 24-35mm range
A normal lens is the 40-60mm range
A portrait lens is the 85-135mm range
A telephoto lens is 100mm or more, really anything from 100-1200mm is a telephoto.

So, you can have a prime telephoto, or a zoom telephoto. Zoom and Telephoto are not interchangeable terms.

[poopinmymouth]

Could someone shed some light on this for me? What exactly makes Zoom lens so bad? Aren't they more versatile than Prime lens? I mean, if I'm just going out to shoot whatever, I don't know what I'll come accross. This is great when doing nature photography, because I'll see birds, animals, and interesting flora. Wouldn't a Prime lens be terrible for this? I want to be able to zoom in as much as possible on an animal, so that I don't have to get too close! I'm assuming you'd just recommend a Telephoto lens in this case... right? Or am I completely off track?

In what situation would a Prime lens be at it's best? Portraits?

*edit*
I've been looking at the Nikon Prime Lens, there seems to be MANY available. But I'm confused on one point. There aren't many that have an actual Focus Motor, like you said, but all of them seem to have Auto-Focus. What's the difference?

In addition to what EQ said, zooms make you compositionally lazy. When you have only a 35mm, for example, and you see something you want to photograph, you frame it up, and think, should I back up to include more? go closer? move to my left or right? Most people with zooms just zoom to frame what they want in the photo and don't think about what the fov does.

For example with a 35mm and a 50mm equivalent, you can zoom or walk till your subject fills the frame from top to bottom standing. In the 50mm framing, you'll see little of his/her surroundings, and a much blurrier background at similar settings. With a 35mm, you will see more of where they are standing, and more of the bg will be in focus. You can use a short tele for this affect in the other direction, isolating even more from the environment and blurring the bg even more extremely.

To match the quality of even inexpensive primes, you have to spend quite a bit for a lens, other than the tamron 17-50mm 2.8 which is around 500 bux, but even still, the cheap 50mm lenses are not only 1.5 stops faster, but also sharper at 2.8.

If you like going out and photographing, very few people actually "need" a zoom lens. Bird photographers, and sports stuff is about it. Everything else you can do within around 35-85mm, many people shoot either 100% with a 35mm or 50mm, and many more using a 2 lens kit with one wideish 24, 28, or 35mm lens, and one longer 75, 85, or 90mm lens.

I shoot a lot, really a lot, and do all the photography I enjoy with just a 35mm lens. It's only when I want to do some headshot portraiture that I switch to an 85mm lens.

Photography is about seeing, and learning to capture. Gear is such a small portion of the equation. Not having the 'right" lens fov is almost never the problem, but not being able to gather enough light for the situation frequently is. You can figure out how to work a normal lens (35-50mm equiv) in almost any situation, but you are not going to be getting good party photos without a flash with an f/4-5.6 lens.

Really I think it should be mandatory for everyone to shoot an entire year with a fixed normal lens. You learn so much about photography, the actual art of taking images, and it frees you from focusing on gear, and thinking you need more/different to improve.

[EarthQuake]

Also, it is very important to note again, that on these longer and slower telephoto lenses, you're likely going to need some support. If you're shooting at F8 on the 200mm lens on a crop body, which is a 300mm you need a minimum of 1/300th a second shutter speed.

Metered out my window in the back yard(cloudy, partially overcast day), I get 1/320th at 800 iso. To freeze the action of a slowly moving animal, you would probably want 600-1000th of second, and to freeze a fast moving animal or flying bird, you'd probably want 2000/th of a second. With a slow zoom lense, this because very difficult, as you're going to need to use ISO 6400/12800 to get these shutter speeds. Now, a 100mm, 135mm or 200mm prime, you could shoot at closer to 800 ISO to get a 1/2000th shutter speed and 800 ISO is generally usable on most cameras, where 6400/12800 likely is not.

[Prophecies]

Ahhh that clears everything up! Thanks alot guys. Right now I'm just using the Zoom lens that came with my D5100. Can't afford a new lens right now, but you guys pretty much got me sold on primes. Zooms do have their use for the kind of photography I do though. I love nature shots. So I never know what to expect in the deep woods. When I need to be quick about taking a shot, having a control on the focal length is a HUGE plus.

Also, what would define a Macro lens?

[EarthQuake]

In addition to what Ben is saying, its very very important to actually understand what the various focal lengths "Do". Most people with zoom lenses zoom in/out to frame, this is generally a bad way to think about it/to work with lenses.

An 18mm lens is going to give massive perspective distortion, which can be great when used in a smart way, to exaggerate relationships between near and far objects for instance. However, when used to take portraits of your friends, their features will become exaggerated and the can appear quite ugly.

A 50mm lens is closest to what the eye actually sees, so it provides a very natural perspective. Good for standard photography and Portraiture.

A 85-100mm portrait/short telephoto does the opposite of a wide lens, it compresses the relationships, which can be every more pleasing when doing closeups of faces for instance.

Longer telephotos compress even more, which can be useful when you want to make relationships appear smaller, IE: objects appear closer than they really are.


So, if you're a zoom guy, you shouldn't be zooming to frame, you should still move around with your FEET to frame, and select the appropriate focal length for the desired effect of the shot.

[EarthQuake]

Ahhh that clears everything up! Wonderful description. What would define a Macro lens?


Hehe, I thought about adding this.

A macro lens is generally a lens that can focus close. Many lenses tag on the "Macro" term these days, but it is applied pretty loosely. "True" macro lenses generally focus to 1:1 or 1:2 reproduction ratio.

Reproduction ratio is a sort of confusing thing to explain, it has to do with filling a 35mm film frame at a 1:1 size ratio, IE: a lens that can focus close enough to fit a 35mm film negative fully in the frame.

In general terms, a 1:2 lens focuses really close, and a 1:1 lens focuses really really fucking close.

Macro lenses with longer focal lengths tend to be better, IE: 90/100mm macro lenses tend to cost more than 50mm macro lenses. This is because a 100mm macro lens that focuses to 1:2 gives you twice the working distance as a 50mm 1:2 lens, while the 50mm lens physically focuses closer, they can both frame an object the same size. However, the 100mm lens gives you 2x the room to work with. A 50mm macro lens can often be hard to use, because you get so close to your subject that you block the light, or even just run into it.

[Prophecies]

Wow. I love your Photography nerdism, EQ.
A macro lens is what I want to get next. I absolutely adore macro photography.
But for Macro, I imagine having a focus motor is a must, right? Things must really get dark in the viewfinder then you're that close to something.

[EarthQuake]

With AF(which I would recommend) your choises are slim, you can get the Nikon 60mm 2.8(which is $350-550) or the Tamron 90mm 2.8(which is $300-400). I would probably recommend the Tamron here as its 90mm, and 90mm is a good focal range to have in general. It could double as a portrait lens in a pinch, which is good considering you can't get the 85mm 1.8.

If you're shooting stationary subjects, you could pick up an old Nikon Micro Nikkor, 2.8 or 3.5 for $75-150, I've used both of these on my Canon via an adaptor and liked them, however you will need to get a better focus screen. These lenses are full on manual, but with a macro lens like this, the focus is nice and slow with a large throw, ie the distances from min to max focus, so its easier to get precise focus.

Autofocus on macro lenses tend to be slow and loud, but I would rather have it than not. The cheap-as-shit Vivitar 100mm 3.5 lens I have is very loud, and the AF sucks(it still gets the job done however), but the image quality is awesome-fantastic, and I paid about $60 for it. It runs in the $75-150 range, but you can only use it on the higher end Nikons. This is what I would really recommend because of the price, but not an option.

[edit] Doing a bit of research, the Tamron 90mm is definitely what I would recommend if you can afford it. At 90mm 2.8, which is 135mm equiv, you get a macro lens, a portrait lens, and a medium telephoto lens, essentially. With a good 2.8 speed. The lens also has an option to lock the focus the the near or far half. IE: you can lock it in the near for macro, and lock it in the far for general purpose. So it wont hunt all the way from 2" inches to infinity when using AF.

[poopinmymouth]

In addition to what Ben is saying, its very very important to actually understand what the various focal lengths "Do". Most people with zoom lenses zoom in/out to frame, this is generally a bad way to think about it/to work with lenses.


That's exactly what I already said. :-P

I have been meaning to write something like this up before, so this provided the perfect excuse to do so. Here is a big 'ol blog post about focal lengths with example images.

http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2011/05/focallengths.html

[EarthQuake]

Well, you mentioned it, but didn't actually explain why, hence the "in addition to" bit. =D

Something else that you didn't really touch on in your blog, as you say 35mm, 50mm, 85mm correspond to 24mm, 35mm, 50mm on crop, while this is true for framing, it is not at all true for perspective distortion. A 24mm lens is going exaggerate relationships a good deal more than a 35mm lens.

Worth noting as its something that people get easily confused by, I use a 30mm 1.4 lens as a "normal" lens, but it is nothing like a normal lens, except for the crop of image it creates. It is distinctly a wide angle lens. Which means that it has the perspective distortion, and relatively wide depth of field characteristics like a like a 28mm lens on film, much more than anything related to a 50mm lens. In this regard it is a disappointing lens, as I love the bokeh and perspective characreristics of my nifty 50. As a wide angle lens, it is a wonderful lens.

This was something I really didn't get when I started shooting, but makes a lot more sense now. A 35mm lens doesn't become a 56mm lens when used on a Canon crop factor, it mearly gives the same sized image. I feel this is a topic that is rarely explained fully.


At the end of the day, if you want to compare a setup containing; 35mm, 50mm, 85mm from full frame to crop, the best thing you can do to get the same results on a crop body is to simply back up a few feet, instead of using wider lenses, because then you're changing the results drastically, this is the best comparison really. A 24mm lens is not really a suitable replacement for a 35mm lens, it is a totally different beast. But we don't always have a few feet to back up, so crop users end up using wider lenses.

[poopinmymouth]

I did explain why, in my bit about people changing sizes based on framing and being compositionally lazy.

Sorry, that's not true about crop vs full frame. You are forgetting distance.

If one were to keep the distance the same and shoot with a 50mm on a crop, and then a 50mm on a full frame, the perspective distortion would be different, but if you frame things up identically with a 35 on a crop, and a 50 on a full frame, you will get the same photo. The perspective distortion changed because your distance changed (you would get much closer to frame your subject with that same 35mm on a full frame camera, which is what would change the distortion).

It's why if you get far enough away with a wide angle (on a full frame or a crop) and crop down the physical image so it only encompasses the subject, you can still get less perspective distortion on stuff. A 35 doesn't become a 50, it's still a 35, but the cropped image from it forces one to use it as a 50mm, making it functionally the same both in it's "reach" and how it shows size relationships. (the only change is a larger DoF resulting in a less blurry background. IE a 23mm f/2 on a crop has the same DoF as a 35mm f/2.8 on a full frame)

You are right that it's rarely explained fully, mostly because few people understand it (as we can see in this thread :-P ). I can show you a photo from my 23mm lens on my X100 crop sensor, and my 35mm lens on my Canon full frame, and at the same distance everything is identical.

Here, I went and found an image demonstrating it. :-) http://www.seriouscompacts.com/attachments/f42/150d1279405092-canon-lenses-full-frame-vs-crop-5035-full-jpg The photographer had to back up with the 35mm to the same distance as the 50 on the full frame in order to frame it up similarly. That distance change is what makes the 35 "behave" like a 50 both in reach and perspective distortion.

[3DLee]

I ended up going with the D3100 and Amazon. With Amazon Prime I got the camera last night and charged it up. I'm pretty impressed so far (of course it is my first DSLR, so... :) ). My memory card and camera bag are still on the way so I just grabbed a spare SD card I had lying around. I was experimenting with shooting JPEG+RAW when I got a "corrupted card" warning. It turns out the SD card I had grabbed was a super slow class 4... oops! I'm hoping to take the camera for a spin tonight with the correct card.

[disanski]

You guys are going wayy too deep in to this. Who needs all of the side by side comparing ( i don't ) I still dont fully understand what is inside them lens and how exactly do they work, but I know what I needed to know :

When shooting portraits ( because this is what I am interested in) 85 mm or longer focal length lens will compress the image and will make the objects in the background look closer to the foreground and the opposite for lens below 50 mm.

85mm (or any other ) lens will give the same result on a crop sensor as it would on a full frame with the difference of not so blurry background (DOF) and cropped by the cropping factor!

That is about it- is it not? -( I hope I am right about what I said above )

I understand it is important to understand everything to the very last part that is inside your gear in order to use it correct, but is this not making it too much complicated?

I also love the way prime lens make you think more and move more!! Even if my images are nothing special yet my photography improved tremendously after I got my first cheap 50 mm prime lens.

Way to go 3Dlee :) now show us some images :)

[poopinmymouth]

Well, EQ is taking it close to "too much" by trying to complicate things with incorrect information. The original post of mine about wide, normal, compressed, is very relevant for creative portraits and understanding what lenses do for perspective and distortion.

There are many times when a subject's surroundings are important, and you want to know how best to show them in relationship. You can backup/get closer, or you can change lenses/ zoom out/in, and both methods have a different result.

It's like understanding the difference between photoshop blending methods when doing textures. One can just go about by feel, or one can have a knowledge about the tools and do things purposefully. Understanding perspective distortion is a very fundamental aspect of photography, especially when people are involved as subjects. I'd actually include it in a photography 101 course.

[EarthQuake]

I did explain why, in my bit about people changing sizes based on framing and being compositionally lazy.

Sorry, that's not true about crop vs full frame. You are forgetting distance.

If one were to keep the distance the same and shoot with a 50mm on a crop, and then a 50mm on a full frame, the perspective distortion would be different, but if you frame things up identically with a 35 on a crop, and a 50 on a full frame, you will get the same photo. The perspective distortion changed because your distance changed (you would get much closer to frame your subject with that same 35mm on a full frame camera, which is what would change the distortion).

It's why if you get far enough away with a wide angle (on a full frame or a crop) and crop down the physical image so it only encompasses the subject, you can still get less perspective distortion on stuff. A 35 doesn't become a 50, it's still a 35, but the cropped image from it forces one to use it as a 50mm, making it functionally the same both in it's "reach" and how it shows size relationships. (the only change is a larger DoF resulting in a less blurry background. IE a 23mm f/2 on a crop has the same DoF as a 35mm f/2.8 on a full frame)

You are right that it's rarely explained fully, mostly because few people understand it (as we can see in this thread :-P ). I can show you a photo from my 23mm lens on my X100 crop sensor, and my 35mm lens on my Canon full frame, and at the same distance everything is identical.

Here, I went and found an image demonstrating it. :-) http://www.seriouscompacts.com/attachments/f42/150d1279405092-canon-lenses-full-frame-vs-crop-5035-full-jpg The photographer had to back up with the 35mm to the same distance as the 50 on the full frame in order to frame it up similarly. That distance change is what makes the 35 "behave" like a 50 both in reach and perspective distortion.

Actually, your 23mm is equiv to your 35mm, because it is designed as a smaller format 35mm lens, with the same perspective distortion etc. This is also true for m43 lenses. However, when you look at 35mm film lenses like a Canon 24mm, its a 24mm on a FF camera, and its a 24mm on a crop camera. The perspective qualities do NOT changed because of the crop. Only the coverage of the lens changes. The perspective distortion, and by that I mean the near/far relation, is still the same.

For instance the Lumix 20mm 1.7 lens, this is essentially a 40mm 1.7 lens and is designed to have the perspective distortion qualities of a normal 40mm lens. Now, if you were to compare this with an actual 20mm lens, designed to be an ultrawide lens for 35mm film cameras, the results would be very different.

You're simply wrong in this case, sorry.

The distance becomes relevant when we start to talk bokeh, as if you need to get farther away to get the same shot, you're liking going to get less creamy bokeh, and on some wider lenses, if you have to step back a few feet, you may be basically hitting infinity.

Your blog post about the relations between wide, normal and telephoto is very much correct, and the relations are also true with ultra-wide, wide and normal, which is basically what you suggest is equivalent on crop. However, they are not the same thing. If they were, there would be no reason(other than noise performance) to shoot fullframe. In the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm comparison, none of these lenses will offer the telephoto like compression qualities of an 85mm lens, when used on a crop body, you have to *drum roll please* actually use an 85mm lens for that.

[poopinmymouth]

Hahah, no, the incorrect one is you. the lens MM is a mathematical function of how it affects light. You can't "design" a 23mm lens to behave like a 35mm, it's not possible. It's a 23mm lens no matter what you put behind it to catch the image.

A 23mm on a crop will give you an identical image (albeit with a larger DoF) to a 35mm on a crop. Period. Same with 35mm crop and 50mm Full frame. You are absolutely wrong about this, full stop.

[poopinmymouth]

Seriously, did you just ignore the image I posted proving you wrong, the detailed explanation that you overlooked distance changes for framing purposes, and just theorize that you must still be right?

[poopinmymouth]

You've posted some helpful information in this thread, but on this you are definitely incorrect and complicating a simple issue for beginners.

50mm is "normal". If you have a cheaper crop/NEX/m4/3 you have to get a wider angled lens to achieve this, 35 on a crop, 25 on a m4/3. Period. That's the point of the discussion, there is no difference a beginner needs to know. If they want wide on a crop, get a 24 or wider. If they want telephoto, anything above the cheap 50mm lens will give it to you.

[EarthQuake]

Yeah, didn't notice that image. I just went to look for myself and ended up proving you right as well.

So the only difference is DOF, this is good to know, and definitely not how I understood it.

I admit defeat.

[poopinmymouth]

The reasons to buy full frame (ignoring the fact that most full frame bodies have superior metering, viewfinders, and auto focus and weather sealing) is to get the lens range to "act" properly. The 35mm L has no peer on a crop on any format. Only the Leica 35s on an M9 touch it, albeit without autofocus. Same with the 50mm 1.2. You can't get a 35mm 1.2 for a DSLR to get that speed on a "normal" lens. You end up having lenses like the 24-70mm f/2.8 which covers 95% of a portrait photographers needs. The 17-50 lenses are good, but not as good as the 24-70, and not weather sealed like it is either.

There are less and less reasons to prefer full frame outside of DoF reasons. I definitely miss the extra blurry background I got on my 35L on a full frame, but outside of that, the X100 (which is a 23mm f/2 on a crop) gives me everything I had from that combo in 1/3 the weight and 1/4 the size. (and 1/3 the price)

[Entity]

tonal range on ff sensors kick the shit out of crops too

[EarthQuake]

Well this is sort of good news to me really, I was thinking I would have to upgrade to fullframe at some point to really get the best out of my lenses, but I'll never be able to afford those lenses that you would really see a difference on.

However, I'm pretty sure I would prefer a 50mm 1.4 on FF vs my 30mm 1.4 on crop, just because of the narrower DOF at the equivalent focal length.

Can you shed any light on why a 30mm lens would be equivalent in terms of focal length and perspective, but the DOF characteristics are entirely different? Or any resources explaining why the perspective is the same, from a technical lens point.

What I mean by that is that like, on my 30mm, at 2 feet, the bokeh is awesome and creamy, but at 10 feet or so, its basically infinity. Not the case on my 50mm.

[poopinmymouth]

It's related to the size things are projected onto the sensor. Imagine looking at the camera from the top, with it sliced down the center so you are looking down on the image coming into the lens, converging to a point, then back onto the sensor.

Because the sensor is physically larger on a full frame, it's being projected larger, hence the blurrier background. This is why medium format lenses, while only being f/2.8 max (other than the wild card mamiya 80mm 1.9) have much crazier background blur than a 35mm camera (not to mention it's "sensor-crop" goes the other way, an 80mm medium format lens is "normal) and a 130mm large format lens is "normal")

It's why my 23mm f/2 lens behaves blurry background-wise like a 35mm f/2.8. The blurry bits aren't projected large enough to look truly blurry.

It's why you get more in focus too. There is only one infinitely flat distance at any setting that is actually "in focus", it's the fact that there is a lot in front and behind that is still sharp enough to appear in focus. Because the crop sensors are smaller (and P&S's even smaller) that so much is in focus. It's actually not any more in focus, it's that it's blurriness is being projected smaller than the individual pixel sites, so it's being recorded as fine detail.

Here is something that will really blow your mind. There is the same amount of background blur on a 30mm f/1.4, a 50mm f/1.4 and an 80mm f/1.4 if you and your subject are at the same distance on all three. It's the fact that that blurry background is projected more largely on the sensor that you see it as more blurry. (because of the perspective distortion) If you took a photo on a 50mm f/1.4 on a cropped-sensor 24 MP camera, and then the same photo at the same distance with an 85mm f1.4 on a full frame 6mp camera, and in photoshop cropped down to the center most 6mp from the cropped-sensor camera image, it would look exactly the same as the full frame version, same amount of background blur, exact same distortion on the face (same amount of ears on the side of the head would be visible, nose the same size, etc) and the same exact stuff would be behind their shoulders and at the same size in both images.

[adam]

this thread is huge so it may have been posted already. in case it hasn't: http://www.wimp.com/everyphotographer/

[Shaffer]

Adam- That clip looks amazing, I want that but I have to imagine it isn't cheap.

Edit: The company has the product on Kickstarter, if you donate $50 you can get one. I wouldn't say that's a bad deal at all.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/97103764/capture-camera-clip-system?ref=search

Looks like I got a job doing real estate photography for a while and I need a basic flash, going to be reading up on what might be best for me but if you guys have any suggestions for brand or best place to start it would be much appreciated.

They said they usually use Tamron 10~20 lenses, but on the outside chance I get to choose which lens they buy me is there a 10mm lens of better value? Probably won't be shooting any 10mm shots for myself personally.

I have the Earthquake starter kit right now as far as lenses go for my 20d, using my kit 18-55mm for wide shots.

[EarthQuake]

In the ultrawide zoom range, your options are:

Tamron 10-24mm 3.5-4.5
Canon 10-22mm 3.5-4.5
Sigma 8-16mm 4.5-4.6
Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6
Sigma 10-20mm 3.5
Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6
Tokina 11-16mm 2.8
Tokina 12-24mm 4.0

Depending on what you want to do you have some options, if you want widest possible, the sigma 8-16mm is a good bet, if you want the fastest, the tokina 11-16mm 2.8 or the sigma 10-20mm(if you want a better range) 3.5 is your lens, the tamron 10-24mm provides the best zoom range, but the canon 10-22mm is pretty similar. Lens speed on these isnt supper important, as you'll likely be shooting at F4-5.6 min or so with some studio lighting/flash for interiors so you'll probably want to go with something that has the best sharpness and zoom range. However, having something that has a 2.8-3.5 aperture and being able to stop down a stop or two to gain sharpness, and still be under F8 is good. I dont really know much as far as sharpness with these lenses, you'll want to do some research.

As far as primes in this range, most people will be using zooms. Most prime lenses in the 8-14mm range are going to be fisheye, which is likely not what you want.

Canon 14mm 2.8
Sigma 20mm 1.8
Canon 20mm 2.8
Canon 24mm 1.4
Sigma 24mm 1.8
Canon 24mm 2.8

Those are pretty much your choices for wide primes, if you know that a 14mm and 20mm lens will cover your needs, the Canon 14mm 2.8 + Sigma 20mm 1.8 or Canon 20mm 2.8 may be a better choice than a ultra wide zoom.

[edit] Forget that 14mm 2.8, its a $2500 L lens, your choices are pretty much only zooms unless you have a massive budget.


For anyone looking at some moderate wide zooms, the Tamron 20-40mm 2.7-4.0(which is F2.8 at 28mm) and the sigma 20-40mm 2.8 look like pretty awesome choices, if you dont need really fast lenses at these apertures, these lenses are a great pairing to a 50mm 1.8 lens instead of a 20/24/28/35mm setup, basically replaces 4 primes without being much slower. I've seen these sell on ebay for $150-300, which makes it a super awesome choice, as any one of those 4 primes can cost that much. If you can find one of these badboys, and need a cheap wide zoom to pair with some longer primes like the 50mm and 85mm, they look awesome.

20-40mm may seem like a poor range(and its why they arent made anymore, I'm sure) but that is actually a really good range on a crop format for regular photography. 32-64mm on Canon, pair that with 50mm(80mm) and 85mm(136mm) for win sauce on a budget.

[Shaffer]

Thanks for the response EQ, I think with my crop sensor the range might be nice for me to get some use out of this lens outside of work. I think I will be getting either one of the 10-20 Sigma's or the 10-24 Tamron depending on what deal I find first. Seems most people like the Sigma over the Tamron in those match ups.

[poopinmymouth]

I had the 10-20 sigma and it was a phenomenal lens on my 40D. I sold both to fund my 5D purchase (even trade) but when I was doing ultrawide stuff I was super happy with it. Even made some nice sized prints and I thought it was much sharper than the Canon 17-40L

[Blaizer]

Talking about bodies, would you buy a nikon d5100? I've heard its image quality is great.

What i really don't know is if that Expeed 2 sensor + a few upgrades are worth 400 euros more for the dual pack with AF-S VR lenses (18-55 & 55-200mm).

What do you think?

[EarthQuake]

Talking about bodies, would you buy a nikon d5100? I've heard its image quality is great.

What i really don't know is if that Expeed 2 sensor + a few upgrades are worth 400 euros more for the dual pack with AF-S VR lenses (18-55 & 55-200mm).

What do you think?

Go a couple pages back, unless you want to stick with the cheap/shitty kit lenses and overpriced fast zooms available for them, STAY AWAY from low end Nikon bodies, period! You wont be able to use many of Nikons best and most affordable fast, sharp prime lenses.

Spend your money on glass, not fancy new features and more megapixels or whatever the 5100 offers. With low end Nikon bodies, its hard to invest in glass, as the selection is so limited.

A 5 year old Nikon D80 + Nikon 85mm 1.8, Nikon 28mm 2.8 or any other of the wide variety of lenses you can not use on a D5100 is going to take better pictures than even the newest and fanciest low end "crippled" Nikon body.

A D80 + 28mm 2.8 + 50mm 1.8 + 85mm 1.8 used is going to run like $1000 all together... A D5100 + 18-55mm + 55-200mm will cost like $1200 or something? The older D80 kit will own it as far as the pictures you take, and will only lack a bit in megapixels, noise performance, and features you don't really need like video.

Look at it this way, here are some standard, high quality Nikon zooms, fast 2.8:
Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 $1000-1500
Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 $1500-2000

Now, when you look at nikon primes on low end, all you can get is 35mm and 50mm. On a low end body, you simply can not replace these lenses with primes.

So lets look at canon, you can get these fast normal zooms(these are also significantly cheaper than Nikon, keke):
Canon 17-55mm 2.8 $850-1250
Canon 24-70mm 2.8 $1000-1500

OR, if we take the magic number of $1250, we can replace these lenses with some super sharp, and fast primes. When you break it all down, cheaping out on a low end Nikon over a low end Canon, or a higher end Nikon, will cost you in lenses, it just doesn't make sense any way you cut it.

24mm 2.8 $325
35mm 2.0 $225
50mm 1.8 $125
85mm 1.8 $325

Grand total $1000.
You could even get the 50mm 1.4 here instead of the 1.8 and still be about the same cost as a quality zoom, so, with Canon you just have much, much better options, regardless of price.


If all you want is a low end body, and a 18-55mm kit lens, then... None of this matters, brand doesn't matter, its not even remotely worth discussing, but if you want anything more than that, serious consideration must be made.

If you just want one really nice general purpose zoom, and hate the idea of primes, well then maybe a low end Nikon body is moot. But even in this case, for your money, you're better off going Canon. To the tune of about $500, or the cost difference between a D3100 and Canon 60D. =P



This seams like plenty, until we start to look at affordable(less than $400) primes, the list then becomes:

35mm 1.8 DX
50mm 1.4 G
50mm 1.8 G
.... and that is fucking-it. This is pathetic, I would never recommend anyone get a Nikon body that doesn't have a focus motor. These cameras are for noobs who will buy the camera with the kit lens, and never consider another lens(or just get another cheap kit tele zoom).

On the other hand, canon prime lenses under or around $400

20mm 2.8
24mm 2.8
28mm 1.8
28mm 2.8
35mm 2.0
50mm 1.4
50mm 1.8
50mm 2.5 macro
85mm 1.8
100mm 2.0
135mm 2.8 soft focus

Virtually every lens you would need for 99% of standard photography, excluding ultra-wide and long telephotos.



Nikon fail etc.

[EarthQuake]

Just to summarize some points i've made over and over here, and just to provide a really simple "Quick look" sort of guide.

1. If you want the best lens selection, go Canon. Nikon is equivalent but only with mid-range bodies and higher, anything low-end is severely limited.

2. If you insist on Nikon but want the best image quality, suck it up and get a mid-range body that works with all Nikon lenses, even if you need to buy an older used body to afford it. Getting the latest and cheapest Nikon dSLR because you want the best image quality is an oxymoron.

3. If you want a low end, affordable body with all the latest features, high quality LCD screen, high resolution, good ISO up to 6400, video, etc. Get a Canon T2i, because you can use the full assortment of Canon lenses, this makes a much better choice over competing Nikon(or anyone else)'s bodies, because of the lenses. Even if the T2i is $200 more than that Nikon you're looking at, its actually more affordable when you realize what you have to pay to get a good lens on a low end Nikon body, or realize you need to upgrade to a $1500 Nikon just to be able to use some primes.

4. If you want the latest camera with the latest features and will never use anything but cheap kit lenses, just go to the store and buy whatever feels best in your hands, seriously, these cameras in the same class have so few real differences it just isn't worth discussing. Anyone who tells you the D5100 is going to give you better image quality in real life situations than a T2i is smoking crack.

5. If you want to build a budget system that gives you great photos, get the cheapest body you can find and put the money into lenses. You can get a Canon 20D or a Nikon 70D for like $225, get a 50mm 1.8 lens, plus a 28mm 1.8/35mm 1.8/2.0(canon) to go with it, generally all for less than the cost of even the cheapest dslr kit new in a store. These bodies offer superior build quality and ergonomics over new fancy features that most people dont need. $1-200 extra for a Canon 40D or Nikon D80.

6. "But XXX brand new cheap camera kit does better high iso!!!" Its moot, if you end up using the cheap kit zoom, you'll be at f5.6-f8.0 to get optimal sharpness, a 50mm 1.8 is going to be as sharp as that lens at its best, when the 50mm is at like 2.0 or 2.2, we're talking a 3-4 stop gain here, which makes any high ISO improvements moot. If you shoot at 800 on you 20D with a 50mm 1.8 lens, you would have to shoot at ISO 6400 on a D5100 + kit lens.

Getting cheap sharp and fast primes on a fancy low end body is also a good idea. Best of both worlds etc, but again only if the lens selection is good.

Uhhh yeah, i'll take suggestions for more of these common situations that can be summed up in a few sentences or less. =P

[poopinmymouth]

If you really really want to learn about photography as an art form, shoot with one camera and one prime lens (non zoom) for a whole year. :-D

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/a-leica-year.html (I know it doesn't follow his advice to the T, but doesn't have to be B&W, nor film, nor leica, the real part of the learning is the one lens one year portion). I'm doing it right now. One year, only 35mm.

[Blaizer]

Thanks a lot EQ :D

The thing is that i have the new d5100 + 18-55mm + 55-200mm for 1000 euro, and the same kit of lenses with the nikon d5000= 599 euro. I saw that.. and i thought, "that may be a good deal". But knowing that canon has a wider and better range of lenses it makes me to doubt about buying a cheaper nikon :). For the nikon i had an eye on the 35mm f1.8 (180€). The other lenses are a little expensive and i wouldn't have cared of paying 400+ euros for a good lense for macro as example.

So, in the Canon side, i have as options the 550D, the 600D and the 60D, but all those much more expensive. The 550 with 18-55 lense is around 650 euros.

The canon lense 55-250 is any good?, i could get a 60d with 18-55 and 55-250 for 1100 euros. There are some other options, much cheaper, like the one with the lense of 18-135mm f/2.8, is that a better option? i could get with it another lense of 50mm f1.8 or a 35mm f2.0.

[disanski]

All the info you would need is already here in this thread but let me just say what I am keep saying :) : try to think what would you shoot with this camera- this will determine what lens you need and from there you can pick your body. If it was me I would get a second hand body from higher class- does not matter nikon - d80 , or canon 40d + brand new 50mm 1.8 :)
I have no idea in what situation you can get away with slower lens and this 50mm 1.8 for canon or nikon is the cheapest lens you can get any way so...
Those are all just personal preference :)

[EarthQuake]

Thanks a lot EQ :D

The thing is that i have the new d5100 + 18-55mm + 55-200mm for 1000 euro, and the same kit of lenses with the nikon d5000= 599 euro. I saw that.. and i thought, "that may be a good deal". But knowing that canon has a wider and better range of lenses it makes me to doubt about buying a cheaper nikon :). For the nikon i had an eye on the 35mm f1.8 (180€). The other lenses are a little expensive and i wouldn't have cared of paying 400+ euros for a good lense for macro as example.

So, in the Canon side, i have as options the 550D, the 600D and the 60D, but all those much more expensive. The 550 with 18-55 lense is around 650 euros.

The canon lense 55-250 is any good?, i could get a 60d with 18-55 and 55-250 for 1100 euros. There are some other options, much cheaper, like the one with the lense of 18-135mm f/2.8, is that a better option? i could get with it another lense of 50mm f1.8 or a 35mm f2.0.


IMO a 50 euro price difference between the D5000 and the 550D is meaningless, you pay a pittance more for the ability and freedom to use any canon EF lens ever made. So even if you don't think you'll want the 135mm 2.8 macro today, you might change your mind in a couple years. Remember that you're buying into a system, and think about the long term here.

[note] prices from here on in USD, for used prime lenses, may vary elsewhere

If you start shooting with primes, you will want at minimum a 50mm 1.8, and a 28mm 2.8, because these are both really good general purpose lenses under $200. You can't use the Nikon 28mm 2.8 on a D5000 however. A canon 550D + 50mm 1.8 + 28mm 2.8 is an excellent starter kit.

If we look at primes that someone is likely to buy for a system, we come to:

24mm 2.8 $300 ~ 38mm
28mm 2.8 $175 ~ 45mm
28mm 1.8 $400 ~ 45mm
30mm 1.4 $400 ~ 48mm Sigma, Cost New, these have focusing issues and should be serviced, free with a new lens! You'll have to pay with a used one.
35mm 2.0 $225 ~ 56mm
50mm 1.8 $125 ~ 80mm Cost new
50mm 1.4 $350 ~ 80mm
85mm 1.8 $325 ~ 136mm
100mm 2.0 $325 ~ 160mm

Now, you dont need to buy all of these lenses, but if start to get serious with photography, you'll want 2-3 of them. If you look at what sort of zoom lens you need to buy to get similar perforate, any reasonable combination of these lenses is going to save you a lot of money, or offer much superior photograph taking ability, whatever way you want to look at it.

When we look at low end Nikons you can only get
30mm 1.4 ~ 45mm Sigma again
35mm 1.8 ~ 52mm
50mm 1.8 ~ 75mm
50mm 1.4 ~ 75mm

You can get away with just the 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 on a low end Canon, sure, for a while atleast. However, I wouldn't want to be limited to these two, as it just isnt enough. 24mm, 28mm and 85mm lenses to me are essential from a camera system standpoint.

Now another thing to consider, you keep talking about the 55-200/55-250mm lenses, these could run you $2-300, and you very likely do not even need this lens. The canon 55-250mm IS is ~ 88-400mm, you really just do not this much range unless you have super ultra specific purpose for it, like being a creepy guy in the bushes at the local school, or taking bird photos or something. Really with this lens, you'll be hard pressed to use it in anything but the best outdoor lighting conditions. So when we start to really consider things, that you're thinking about spending $2-300 extra for a lens that will be of barely any use, spending 2-300 on a high quality, sharp and fast prime lens that you will be able to use in virtually any situation makes a lot more sense.

When we get into primes, most people can live with just two or three. Here are some potential combos:

A.
28mm 2.8 $175
50mm 1.8 $125
- $300 this covers basically a "normal"(~50mm) range and a portrait type(~80mm) range, this is the cheapest prime kit I would recommend, and what I started out with.

B.
35mm 2.8 $225
50mm 1.8 $125
85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0 $325
- $675, this is a kit geared towards someone more interested in the long range than the wide, with normal(~50mm), portrait(~80mm) and short-medium telephoto(~136mm or ~160mm), but you get it all at the fast speed of 2.0 or better! again this is going to be a 3-4 stop improvement over any zoom lens this side of $500, and you'll likely pay $1000-2000 to get a zoom lens to replace these primes.

C
24mm 2.8 $300
35mm 2.0 $225
50mm 1.8 $125
- $650, this covers the classic ranges, wide(~35mm) normal(~50mm) and portrait(~80mm)

Now, if we think that you're considering spending $300 on a telephoto lens you probably do no need, the price for these kits drops to:
A. same cost
B. $375
C. $350

To me this is a no brainer, and not at all unaffordable. You can buy them one at a time if its too much to spend all at once, or buy them when you feel you need to go wider/longer. If you can get a 55-200/250mm lens, for around $100 or less go for it, any more is not worth it unless you really know exactly how you're going to use it and what its for. I've got cheap 80-200mm lens that I paid like $30(got it with some other crap) for, which is about what it is worth to me considering how much I actually use it(almost never).

Oh another note, a 85mm/100mm lens + even a cheap 2x teleconverter is going to give you better speed, and likely better/equivalent image quality than a low range telephoto zoom. I recently got some off brand 2x with some other stuff, and used with my cheap 100mm lens, I get quite surprisingly acceptable results!

Put a 2x tele on a Canon 100mm 2.0 and you'll end up with a 200mm 2.8 lens, even if the result is a little soft from the 2x, this will give you better pictures than any low range tele zoom.



One last note, we can get a Nice T2i body, and 3 prime lenses, all for less than the cost or about the same cost of a Canon 60D or Nikon D90 kit. Not at all an expensive proposition when you think about it that way.

Now watch, someone will tell me the 85mm 1.8 sells for $800 in Spain. =P Well, this advice is good for anyone in the US at the very least. Looking at ebay Spain you can pick one up for 350 euro new, so if you can find a used one for 250-275 euro, that is probably decent.

[Shaffer]

I had the 10-20 sigma and it was a phenomenal lens on my 40D. I sold both to fund my 5D purchase (even trade) but when I was doing ultrawide stuff I was super happy with it. Even made some nice sized prints and I thought it was much sharper than the Canon 17-40L

Yeah that's all I have to hear, I'm only interested in the Sigma 10-20. Been looking on ebay and other forums to see if anybody has one used.

For a budget flash I picked up a Yongnuo 560 and it's seems to be pretty nice build quality for $60. Also the body of it is almost identical to the 580ex so the 580ex diffuser fits perfectly on it. Picked up Eneloop rechargeable AA's for it, my girlfriend loves them and recommends them highly.

Edit: Also do you guys have any opinion on the Sony A850? My roommates daddy and mommy just bought one for him.

[Xoliul]

EQ, i need your help. My Sigma 24mm f1.8 prime has some weird blurriness going on all of a sudden. From one pic to the other all of they seem to have at best some sort of blurry smear on them (some just look totally out of focus even. It's only visible when you look at them fullscreen on pc, but obviously wrong.

Judging by the pics, it happened right after I let my friend try the lens on his D3000. It didn't work, gave some error code on the D3000, so I put it back on mine and kept snapping for two weeks, only to notice half my pictures totally failed.. There's a few 50mm shots between them and they look super-nice compared to the 24mm shots, so it's not the camera...

I'm thinking the autofocus on that lens might have gone bust or something when we put it on the D3000 ?

[EarthQuake]

Yeah that does seem strange. When I first purchased my Sigma 30/1.4, it was backfocusing pretty bad. I sent it into Sigma, with my camera body, and they calibrated it and now its pretty much perfect. It was under warranty, so I only had to pay to ship it to them, it took about two weeks to get it back, including shipping time, which was awesome.

I'm not sure why it would start miss-behaving after being used on the D3000, but it certainly is possible that some of the electronics got messed up. Hey, just another reason to stay away from those low end Nikon bodies, not only do most lenses not work on them, but if you try one, you might break it! =P

Even if your lens isn't under warranty, you should contact Sigma to get a quote on a focus calibration, I can't imagine it will cost much.

One thing I notice on my 30mm, is that it will sometimes allow you to take a photo too quickly, ie: before it has properly finished focusing. For this reason I tend to shoot a lot of multiples, or just wait half a second or so before taking the shot when using the 30mm. I think it has to do with the Full time manual focusing, IE: you can take a shot anytime even if correct focus isnt achieved. So I would do some tests, focus wait a second to make sure you have proper focus, then see how the results look.

Its possible it has been front/back focusing the entire time you've had it, and you're just noticing it now. It would be much more apparent close up, at low apertures, than say, 10 feet at f4 or something. So do some tests wide open at the closest you can focus.

Now if it is a smear or irregular blurring, that sounds more likely to be some sort of lens defect. It could be some fingerprints/smudges on the front or rear element, it could be some fungus growing internally if you live in a very humid/hot area without air conditioning. I would shine a flashlight through the lens and see if there is anything nasty in there. The exterior of the glass is easy enough to clean, if its fungus you'll need to get it repaired, which could cost $1-200 and you might be better off buying a new lens instead.

Now, if its sort of, blurring on just one side of the image, there could be some serious mechanical damage, ie: a lens element has been knock around and is no longer properly centered. This would probably be pretty unlikely. As you would likely notice the sort of blunt force damage that would be required for this to happen.

[Xoliul]

I'll check for the calibration, might be that. I never dropped it, and it was almost new when i got it a few months ago, so fungus and other horrors are probably not the case.

Here's a before and an after pic, the after is a very clear example. Both 100% crops, same lens and body.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12093849/dump/sigmaproblem.jpg

Kinda bummed about it, I was never very happy with it, general colors, sharpness vividness of the images was behind the 50mm Prime at all times, but this makes the thing worth less when selling. I should've just gotten a DX 35mm prime instead :/

[disanski]

oo damn that looks strange... did it fir properly on the other body? if it did not you might have damaged the connectors or what ever they are called .. have no idea how you can check and if this would affect the image.

[EarthQuake]

I'll check for the calibration, might be that. I never dropped it, and it was almost new when i got it a few months ago, so fungus and other horrors are probably not the case.

Here's a before and an after pic, the after is a very clear example. Both 100% crops, same lens and body.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12093849/dump/sigmaproblem.jpg

Kinda bummed about it, I was never very happy with it, general colors, sharpness vividness of the images was behind the 50mm Prime at all times, but this makes the thing worth less when selling. I should've just gotten a DX 35mm prime instead :/

Being slightly out of focus could cause this, but i'm not sure thats your only problem here.

The lens otherwise seems to function correctly, no errors or weird noises or anything like that?

[Xoliul]

Yeah nothing unusual, it thought it worked fine for 2 weeks.
I called Sigma, they said to take it to a Photo shop, no point really calling them.

[EarthQuake]

Alright, so I'm thinking of switching over to a Sony Alpha from my Canon 350D. I was pretty set on getting a T2i at the end of the year, but I'm looking for a comparable Sony. The biggest reason is simply: you can get some dirt cheap lenses for Sony's.

Sigma/Quantaray 24mm 2.8 - which will not work on canon DSLRs- dirt cheap used
Minolta 28mm 2.8 - dirt cheap used
Sony 35mm 1.8 - cheap brand new, could replace my sigma 30mm 1.4
Minolta 50mm 1.7 - dirt cheap used
Minolta 50mm 1.4 - $250ish used
Sony 85mm 2.8 - Cheapish new, but disappointingly slow. Sony doesn't offer a 85mm F2ish lens, which is a disappointing, Canon has the 85mm 1.8 and 1.2, offering a reasonable choice on a budget but still very good lens in the 1.8. Sony has the 85mm 2.8, Minolta 85mm 1.4 and CZ 85mm 1.4. Two expensive 1.4's and no 1.8 or 1.2.

However, I could sell my 30mm 1.4, and basically afford the 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 2.8, so that is extremely tempting. 2.8 isn't that bad when its essentially a 135mm lens on a crop sensor. The 50mm 1.8/1.4 at 75mm on a crop is close enough to a traditional 85mm 1.8 lens for portrait work. And the bokeh you can get from a 135mm lens, even at 2.8, would likely suffice for close up portraits.

I have a Vivitar 100mm 3.5 macro, and a Samyang 8mm fisheye, that I could easily sell and replace for about the same cost in the A mount.

I have a vintage Canon 70-210mm F4 that I just got and love, but could replace with the Minolta 70-210mm F4 beercan.

So, I'm thinking I could save hundreds, maybe thousands over the life of my camera system just going with the cheaper lenses that are available for the A mount system.


So now, I'm looking for a decent sized Sony DSLR, with comparable features to the 550D and nice comfortable ergonomics. The A33/A55 are tiny and uncomfortable, so out of the question. The A560 and A580 look to be great as far as price, and look to be a bit more comfortable but I haven't had a chance to use one yet.

I really think I would prefer a traditional Optical viewfinderm, and i'm a little confused about what the viewfinder on the A560/580 really is, just a small liveview screen? Maybe that wouldn't be much of an issue, but I dont like the idea. REading a bit more, both? Well that was one of the major knocks on it for me, so if that is the case its good news.

Also, there are no manual controls for video on the A580, and no AF during video. Neither of which are really deal-breakers, but it is disappointing.

But I get in-body IS and improved noise performance, dynamic range and bit depth. Along with a variety of other less important features like higher shooting rate and flip out screen, that would be nice to have but not at all a requirement.

So please, someone, tell me why I'm being an idiot here.

[disanski]

You have been reading up on cameras and lens for quite some time now, so it all makes sense :)
If you know what lens you will be using the camera body looks perfectly fine. Most likely you will be getting brand new one? I think the 580 has regular optical viewfinder.
I had the chance to shoot with A55 probably an year ago and it had that digital viewfinder and it felt really good at that time ( a little strange but in a good way) you can actually see if it gets darker.
Loved the 15 AF points and because back then I was shooting with olypmpus I can't really tell if it was fast or not.
Considering you are not going to have any problems selling your old equipment I don't see why not go for it :)

edit : I would love to try the Minolta 50mm f1.4

[EarthQuake]

Yeah so I'm thinking:

Quantaray 24mm - already have
Sony 35mm 1.8
Minolta 50mm 1.7 - already have, upgrade to the 1.4 later maybe, i've seen these(the 1.4) go for silly prices when bundled with some other stuff, like under $200.

Then its picking between:

Sony 85mm 2.8
Vivitar 100mm 3.5 macro

or

Tamron 90mm 2.8, which is about the same cost as the above two, and a better macro lens than the 100mm, but a worse portrait/general purpose tele than the 85mm.... So, just need to decide if I'm willing to live with the slower AF on the 90mm, as it looks like a pretty nice lens. The small size and weight of the 85mm also looks very attractive, I love small primes like the Canon 50mm, that I can throw in a bag and never worry about.

I'm getting an A100 in a few days that I purchased for cheap off ebay, just to test out some of the MA lenses I sell. So it will be interesting to see how it feels. Basically unless the Sony has some terrible interface or ergonomic problems that make it unusable, the cheaper lenses really look attractive.

[poopinmymouth]

On a crop body, an 85 isn´t as important as on a full frame. Get a nice 50 and you´re set, you don´t need the extra compression of an 85. You´re much harder up to find good actual wide angle lenses on a crop than good portrait lenses.

[EarthQuake]

Right exactly, the 85mm on a Sony is essentially a 135mm 2.8, which is the standard for a 135, and a super compact 135 for general short telephoto use sounds like a good thing. I've actually been a little bummed that Canon hasn't came out with an affordable 135mm equiv 2.8 lens for crop, as 135's were part of most people's kits back in the film days. Not that the 85mm 1.8 is super expensive or anything, but it is 2x the cost of the Sony 85/2.

The Canon 85mm 1.8 is one main reasons I'm still thinking of sticking with Canon, as I've read its just about the sharpest lens you could find and it was going to be my next lens purchase. However, the Sony 85mm looks to be about as sharp as the Canon 50mm 1.8, which honestly is as sharp as I will ever need a lens, any extra sharpness can be gained in post.

I've been looking at 18/20mm primes for the wide end as well, but I'll probably just get a 10-20mm-ish zoom eventually for interiors and whatnot that I would need a lens that wide for. I think a 24mm would be wide enough for the rest. I've gotten by with my 30mm generally being the widest lens I carry other than the 8mm fisheye.

Anyway, I feel very comfortable about the lens aspect, even though there are quite a few less lenses for Sony, there is still a decent selection, and many of the 3rd party lenses(sigma 20/24mm 1.8, sigma, tamron 90mm macro, sigma 85mm 1.4, etc) that I would consider for Canon, before I would consider L lenses, are available and often a little cheaper for Sony.

So what I would really love to hear, is just if anyone has any personally experience withe Sony body's, and generally how they handle.

[Ark]

I have the A55, so i can only give my impressions of that and so far it's been great, haven't had that much time to go out with it sadly. Weather here hasn't helped either.

Firstly this thing is tiny compared to other DSLR's, so if you you have bigger than average mits then you might be better with the larger non SLT bodies like the A580. Better of trying one in a shop if you can.

One good point is that the camera is also a lot lighter and you won't feel encumbered when carrying it around. Another artificial point is you get that less nerdy look as you mentioned earlier in the thread as the camera looks more like a larger compact camera, unless you have a big Telephoto zoom lens on the end of it.

Which brings me to another point of having such a small camera with a huge Telephoto lens. Some have reported the seals not being to take the weight of such big lens. Probably due to not supporting the lens, so just a point to look into if you use these Telephoto lenses.

I think the other big issue is SLT versus SLR. Some argue your not seeing a true representation in the Viewfinder, why this may be slightly true, i haven't experienced any photos that looked any different than i saw in the Viewfinder.

The A55 has a twisting/tilting LCD screen which is a godsend when you try to take a low angled shot that require you to perform some gymnastic move to balance body on your foot, or by laying down.

The menus/settings are all clearly layed out and most features have a one button on/off switch so you don't need to go digging around in the menus for some option you want to turn on/off.

Imho, SLT pro's outweigh most of the con's that people associate with the SLT technology, things like no need for MLU and super fast continuous shooting are great.

SLT bodies do drain there batteries much more quickly than SLR's as you can imagine with the digital viewfinder and LCD screen/Line View. Unless you going shooting non-stop all day, i wouldn't be too concerned. This haven't bothered me and theres also a nice feature that turns the viewfinder off, until you put your eye up to the viewfinder.

Onto the lenses, i still only have the standard zoom lens which came with the camera (18 - 55 SAM), again I'm no expert, but the lens is great considering it just a kit lens, many of the reviews also praise it for being what it is.
It is subject to a bit of lens flare, but the sharpness and and noise are very well acceptable for what it is. Haven t experienced any CA either.

I do plan on getting the 35mm F1.8 SAM, which has been praised a lot for it's price to quality, i know a lot over on DPR and Dyxum use it over the 1.4 on full-frame bodies.

The CZ 16-60 F3.5-4.6 SAM was another lens that i was planning to purchase myself, another lens thats highly praised for APS-C bodies, being CZ, it's supposed to be some of the best glass you can get for the APS-C sony bodies. The maximum aperture is not really wide enough for me personally, but i suppose it's flexibility over some nice Bokeh and DOF.

I was still contemplating getting 3 primes instead of the CZ 16-20. The 35mm F1.8, 50mm F1.8 and the 85mm F2.8. Covers nearly the range of the CZ 16-80, but with obvious better IQ of the prime lenses.

The 85mm F2.8 is another lens i know people are using on full-frame over the expensive CZ 85 F1.4.

As you probably know all the lenses essentially come with image stabilization thanks to Sony's inbuilt Steadyshot.

Like you mentioned earlier in the thread, you have access to all those Minolta lenses that are floating around on Ebay.

The Sigma 8-16mm, the full-frame of the popular 12-24mm equivilent was one of the wide angle lens that i was looking at before the the news of the incompatibility with A55 came, which i think has been sorted on all new lenses. This looks like a great alternative to the usually comparable Tamaron 10-24mm or the Tokina 11-16mm.

The Minolta 50mm 1.7 seems to be one of the best bargains you can get for price/quality.

Most of the CZ lens are all supposed to be excellent, although most are for full-frame and require many $$$. Im sure they all will work with the APS-C bodies, but theres a price to pay what what some describe as the best quality. Maybe it's worth investing in your gonna stick with the Sony brand.

I believe Sony will be ditching the traditional SLR technology and investing more in the SLT technology and the A900 full-frame body replacement will be SLT, so if the SLT technology isn't your 'thing' then i guess looking at these lenses will not be that worthwhile, price wise.

I will try to think of anything else I've missed or if you have any more questions i would be glad to help.

A few links that every Sony user should visit:

http://kurtmunger.com/index.html
http://www.dyxum.com/index.asp
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1037

[EarthQuake]

Thanks a lot Ark, yeah honestly the SLT thing doesn't scare me off too much, its the tiny uncomfortable grip of the A55. I'm trying to find an A560/A580 locally in a store here but having no luck atm. Looks like the super popularity of the A55 is keeping retailers from stocking the SLR designs.

If I go Sony and am forced to upgrade to a SLT in the future that isn't a big deal, hell, I could just sell everything and go back to Canon anyway. =P

I will likely pass on any CZ lenses, just as I would pass on Canon L glass, to me, just way too much to pay for marginal improvements. Sure I would rather have a 1.4 85, but at 6x the price, I just don't see the point. If i was making money as a photographer it would be different though, but just for hobby stuff, the pro-level 1st party lenses aren't worth it.

I will look over your links.

As for specific Qs:

How do you feel about the general controls, setting ISO, aperture, setting aperture in Manual? Do you hold down a little button to adjust aperture like on a Canon XXXD when in manual?

How good is the in-body IS? I'm really looking forward to this, even if its just 1-2 stop improvement, that would be huge.

What is your opinion on the video mode, I was really looking forward to the manual controls, and 720p/60FPS of the T2i...

I'm sure i'll think of more later.

[edit] Just looking at raw/jpeg from the A580, man iso 3200, 6400 and 12800 are all usable from jpeg for web resolution, sure the NR is a bit heavy but it still retains a huge amount of detail.... I'm sure the T2i is pretty similar, but this just looks awesome. 2x the pixels with like 3-4 stops improvement in noise over my current dSLR.

[Ark]

I think this specific A55 is well layed out, on the back you have one button controls for adjusting White Balance, ISO, Display/Live View, Focus Mode, Metering, Movie mode etc.. The Aperture and Shutter Speed and E/V can be adjusted by a combination of a scroll wheel, located conveniently under the shutter release button and the scroll wheel in combination with a button located on the top of the body. Very easy once you get used to it.

The in-body IS i would say is good enough for long exposures, obviously it's gonna be a lot poorer on longer exposures and the chance increases the longer the exposure, but most of my shots have been good, albeit i haven't really relied to much on this system as the A55 is quite light and you can probably hold it steady enough with one hand without straining to keep it stable. The camera does alert you through the VF/LCD when it is working and how much shake the camera is compensating for.

The video mode i haven't used all that much tbh, maybe a couple of times in program mode :D i think some of the manual controls are fixed, so once you have started recording you cant change things like the aperture/shutter speed. The movie mode is one of the big features of this camera tho, being able to record at 60FPS and all, so i doub't it's gonna be subpar. I have heard tales of the AF motor being audible in recordings so it may worth looking into an external recorder and the price cost if this is a feature your gonna use alot.

[Entity]

The new Carl Zeiss lenses are the shit. Till this day I still regret selling my 35/2 Distagon..it's right up there with most of my leica lenses.

[EarthQuake]

Just got the A100, intial reactions:

SSS is wonderful, even if this camera has a little higher noise than my 350D, SSS lets me take shots at much slower shutter speeds and thus lower ISO. Yayayayay. Inbody IS, its really shocking that Canon/Nikon have not gotten onto this bandwagon yet, its one of the few features you can add to a camera that will actually make better photos.

Old-ass sigma/quantaray lenses are compatable, yay! You'll get an "error 99" if you try to use them on Canon.

Anyone looking for a dirt-cheap 35mm equiv for your sony dslr, get yourself a Simga/Quantaray 24mm 2.8. Preferable one that looks like this, as it will be cheap as hell!
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f9/shall19/joescameras/quantaray24mmma_A_01.jpg

Very sharp, about as loud as Minolta 50mm 1.7, maybe a little louder. Seems most MA mount lenses that use the in-body motor are relatively loud, that is one thing I will miss from Canon. But for the price, you can't go wrong, you can find these well under $100 on ebay. Even at $100-150, this is a good buy.

[Ark]

Theres a few of those Sigma 24mm 2.8 going on ebay here for around £75, trouble is that some of the old Sigma lenses aren't compatible with the SLT bodies.

I have been looking at the Minolta 50mm 1.7 though, just need to compare how well it faces up against the Sony 50mm 1.8 and if the extra cost on the Sony version is worth it.

[EarthQuake]

I doubt the Sony is much better optically, and likely much poorer build quality. The minolta 50/1.7 actually has excellent build quality, feels much nicer than the Canon 50/1.8 II(which i would imagine is similar to the Sony's plastic build). If the Sony has quieter AF, that would be a big plus.

Some of the Minolta 50/1.7 are 20 years old, which is something to consider, but also a testament to their build quality. I've had/sold a handful of them and all were in good working condition. Older maxxum lenses generally have a "whitening" on the rubber of the grips, do not be scared off by this, a toothbrush + some ArmorAll(or whatever equivalent product you have in the UK, used for cleaning leather/car interiors) works very well to bring it back to new. Often times you'll find a particularly nasty looking Maxxum lens that just needs a good exterior cleaning, then looks mint, but will likely sell for less on eBay.

Look in "film photography" on ebay, you can sometimes find a Minolta 50mm 1.7 attached to a Maxxum 7000 or other Minolta film camera, for 25-50% less than what the lens itself sells for, plus free film camera. =P Just type "Maxxum" into the search in the film photography section, and browse until you find a 7000 + lens, shouldn't take long.

This is a pretty good method for finding good deals on:
Sigma/Quantaray 24mm 2.8
Minolta 24mm 2.8
Minolta 28mm 2.8
Minolta 50mm 1.7
Minolta 50mm 1.4
(primes)

Minolta 35-70mm macro F4
Minolta 28-85mm macro 3.5-4.5
Minolta 35-105mm
Minolta 100-200mm
Minolta 70-210mm F4
Minolta 100-300mm F4.5
(beercan zooms)

All of which are pretty popular on the used market. Often times you'll find lots with 2-4 of the above lenses. The more expensive primes like the 35mm 2.0 and the 135mm 2.8 are harder to find in lots like this though.

PS: As far as the Sig/Quant 24mm 2.8, I have 3 of them (1 sig, 2 quant) and they all work on my A100, however, I've got an older sigma 60-200mm that does NOT work on my A100, so there is a cutoff somewhere likely of how old these lenses work. The quantaray's may be a better bet, as they are generally re-branded older sigma lenses, which means they could be an older design but with a newer chipset.

However, I'm not familiar with the A33/A55 SLT bodies and how compatible older 3rd party lenses are. If you find one for a decent price I would go for it, or look for a Minolta 28mm 2.8 instead, which you might find for ~$200, still a good price.

Double PS: I just ordered the Sony 35mm 1.8 SAM, I will give you an update on the build quality and focus noise vs the older minolta primes, as the 35/50 have a very similar build and same focus system.

[Ark]

Thx for info EQ, I'm gonna see whats available here.

[EarthQuake]

Oh and, moreso than the 50/1.7, for near the same cost or a little more of the new Sony 50/1.8, you might be able to pick up a Minolta 50/1.4, at which point there is no comparison. These sell anywhere from $150-300.

[Prophecies]

I have a question for you, EQ. I'm really wanting to get into close-up/macro photography. The problem is, I don't think I have the means to get a dedicated Macro Lens. Would tube extenders/close-up filters, or even a nice telephoto lens be a worthy compensation? I wouldn't mind a telephoto, since I would be using it for nature/animal photography as well.

Thanks in advance!

[EarthQuake]

Well, if you want AF macro tubes, you're better off buying a cheap dedicated lens. Depending on what camera you have, some options are:

vivitar/pheonix/etc 100mm 3.5, this same lens is rebranded by a few different companies, can be had for $75-150. Try to find one with the 1:1 adaptor
sigma/quantaray 50mm 2.8, can be had for less than $150 for oldr versions, may not be compatable with canon
sigma 70mm 2.8, $3-400, really nice, cheaper than similar 1st party macro lenses but excellent lens
tamron 90mm 2.8, similar to above, but 90mm

The tamron 90 would be a good choice to double as a general purpose prime tele, if you get a tele zoom with "macro" it is generally not really what most would consider macro, but 1:4 or less, which isnt bad but depends on how close you really want to get.
What camera and what other lenses do you have?

getting some manual focus macro rings, an adaptor(m42, om, nikon), and an older manual focus macro lens is an option, but i would opt for the 100mm/3.5 at that point.

[Ahrkey]

Would you guys recommend the Fuji x100 for a beginner? I'm in the hunt for a suitable camera for a friend of mine and she's given me a budget with some wishes; something fancy, not a compact, something to grow in.

At first I was thinking along regular entry-level dslr(canon due to previous mentioned arguments, thanks EQ and others).

Now the fuji is just outside her budget but she might budge. I think she might have more fun with the fuji and learn better/faster than a canon with a kit lens?
Why not a canon with a prime you might ask? Well I believe if it's something she'll disapprove with the fuji it would be the lack of zoom.

[Entity]

I would get her an entry level dslr, or the better m4/3 cameras. That way she has the flexibility to try out different focal lengths, cause the x100 is stuck at 35mm.

[disanski]

Congrats on the new toy EQ :) Show us some images now :)
@ qlz I think Entity's suggestion is great.

I also have a question : I am going on vacation at the end of the month and I am bringing my camera with me. The problem is that I am going camping on the beach. The heat is crazy there and even if I leave the camera in the tent it will still be pretty hot. How would you guys handle that. Also all of the 5d classics tend to have that problem with the glue on the mirror fading off so I dont really want to risk that.
Really not sure what to do here -- I might just bring my older camera with me and whatever happens :)

[Ark]

When going from a cold to hot area, I was advised to seal my camera in a plastic bag with some silca gels and remove the batteries to allow the equipment to acclimatise.

Other than that would about a coolbag thats normally used for storing drinks and such?

[poopinmymouth]

Would you guys recommend the Fuji x100 for a beginner? I'm in the hunt for a suitable camera for a friend of mine and she's given me a budget with some wishes; something fancy, not a compact, something to grow in.

At first I was thinking along regular entry-level dslr(canon due to previous mentioned arguments, thanks EQ and others).

Now the fuji is just outside her budget but she might budge. I think she might have more fun with the fuji and learn better/faster than a canon with a kit lens?
Why not a canon with a prime you might ask? Well I believe if it's something she'll disapprove with the fuji it would be the lack of zoom.

The X100 would be a great camera for this. Plenty of people started with fixed lens cameras back in the film days. 35mm is very versatile, and forces you to think, rather than zoomy zoom zoom all the time with no thought to composition.

I think it'd be a great idea. It would certainly give better image quality than a cheap dslr with kit lens.

Let her look around my X100 year blog, I've been shooting only with the X100 for 4 months now, and it should give her a good idea of the range of images you can get with it. http://myx100year.blogspot.com

[disanski]

Good idea Ark. That should work if I dot come up with better idea. I just wonder if that cooler bag will be much cooler with no ice in it :)

What Ben is suggesting is also very good idea. Somebody perhaps him suggested this when I was starting and it gave me such a boost to start using fixed lens. It can not compare with anything else i have done to improve my photography :) It just forces you to think and move with your legs in order to find better frame.

[Entity]

Working with one lens is great, but the x100 might not be the best camera for a beginner because a) fixed 35mm lens and b) price. A cheaper entry level dslr + prime would be much more versatile, as she can change focal lengths if something wider/longer is needed.

[Calabi]

Do you guys have any opinions of this camera.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GF2_Digital-Camera_review

I was thinking of getting a simple Panasonic TZ8 but then I saw the one above and thought it might be worth getting something a bit better.

[Ark]

Good idea Ark. That should work if I dot come up with better idea. I just wonder if that cooler bag will be much cooler with no ice in it :)

You can normally get the freeze packs or the gels that can be frozen then place in the coolbags that are sealed units so no risk of leakage

[disanski]

:) yeaaa :) it is not in civilized area and there is no power there meaning no place where i can freeze it :) But it is great idea. I will think what i can do about that.
@ calabi I dont know anything about that camera nor any 3d cameras but it kind of expensive :)

[Entity]

Do you guys have any opinions of this camera.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GF2_Digital-Camera_review

I was thinking of getting a simple Panasonic TZ8 but then I saw the one above and thought it might be worth getting something a bit better.

I would go for the GF1 and use the extra cash for the 20mm 1.7 pancake (great lens)

[EarthQuake]

Working with one lens is great, but the x100 might not be the best camera for a beginner because a) fixed 35mm lens and b) price. A cheaper entry level dslr + prime would be much more versatile, as she can change focal lengths if something wider/longer is needed.

I agree, I really wouldn't suggest an X100 for a beginner, now for someone like Ben, who's main requirement for a camera is that it has a 35mm 2.0 or faster lens, then its a perfect choice. =P

But for someone just starting out, I really wouldn't want to limit them to just a single focal range, esp at the $1200+ price point, its too much of a niche camera. Playing around with a 24/2.8 ~35mm here, this personally would be too wide of a lens, with much too wide depth of field for me to choice as my only lens, I would much prefer a ~50mm. With no possibility of a 75-85mm-ish portrait lens? No thanks.

But yeah, a Nex 5, an Olympus EP-1 with Panasonic 20mm 1.7, a Canon 500D/550D, a Sony A33,A55,A560,A580, those would be my suggestions. Take her to best buy and let her try them out and see how they all feel.

And before I get hate for suggesting an M4/3, Oly/Panasonic simply have a better lens selection than the Nex at this point, the Nex is probably the better system to invest in though, with the much better sensor etc. However, with Sony rumored to be coming out with a ~35mm/2 and ~60mm/2 lenses in 2011, it wouldn't be a bad bet. The ~24mm pancake always seemed like a very odd lens choice.


In other news, I did the math, and by getting a moderate selection of SA lenses:
Quant 24mm
Sony 35mm 1.8
Minolta 50mm 1.7
Minolta 100-200mm 4.5

and selling:
Samyang 8mm
Sigma 30mm 1.4
Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 70-210mm F4

I can afford to buy a used A560! So i did! Weeee, should be here on thursday. I'll get the 85mm/2.8 and likely the Minolta 50mm 1.4 a bit later, maybe replace the 8mm 3.5 fisheye in time but i didn't use it much so no rush.

[poopinmymouth]

I agree, I really wouldn't suggest an X100 for a beginner, now for someone like Ben, who's main requirement for a camera is that it has a 35mm 2.0 or faster lens, then its a perfect choice. =P

But for someone just starting out, I really wouldn't want to limit them to just a single focal range, esp at the $1200+ price point, its too much of a niche camera. Playing around with a 24/2.8 ~35mm here, this personally would be too wide of a lens, with much too wide depth of field for me to choice as my only lens, I would much prefer a ~50mm. With no possibility of a 75-85mm-ish portrait lens? No thanks.

But yeah, a Nex 5, an Olympus EP-1 with Panasonic 20mm 1.7, a Canon 500D/550D, a Sony A33,A55,A560,A580, those would be my suggestions. Take her to best buy and let her try them out and see how they all feel.

And before I get hate for suggesting an M4/3, Oly/Panasonic simply have a better lens selection than the Nex at this point, the Nex is probably the better system to invest in though, with the much better sensor etc. However, with Sony rumored to be coming out with a ~35mm/2 and ~60mm/2 lenses in 2011, it wouldn't be a bad bet. The ~24mm pancake always seemed like a very odd lens choice.


In other news, I did the math, and by getting a moderate selection of SA lenses:
Quant 24mm
Sony 35mm 1.8
Minolta 50mm 1.7
Minolta 100-200mm 4.5

and selling:
Samyang 8mm
Sigma 30mm 1.4
Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 70-210mm F4

I can afford to buy a used A560! So i did! Weeee, should be here on thursday. I'll get the 85mm/2.8 and likely the Minolta 50mm 1.4 a bit later, maybe replace the 8mm 3.5 fisheye in time but i didn't use it much so no rush.


Different people want different things out of photography. For example you're changing gear like the Fonz changed girlfriends. Nothing wrong with that, photography is up to the individual to determine how they will enjoy it. But, as a general rule, most women get "into gear" less, and prefer the act of taking photographs more, and as a "learn the settings in a few days, then forget about it and get on with taking photos" the X100 is a great camera. It's invisible, much quicker than a dslr with 100 buttons and the option/temptation to switch lenses.

If you can find a shop with one, try letting her handle it and look through the gorgeous viewfinder. She might find the manual controls, small size, and limitation of one lens is appealing. Then again, she might look at a dslr and enjoy that experience more. I just want to re assert my advice that I think having a limited lens choice is a good thing for a beginner. She certainly won't be able to approach the image quality, with video and macro abilities, for the same price point.

[haiddasalami]

College was throwing out a Nikon FM10 so I grabbed it off their hands :) Now to get those chemicals.

[EarthQuake]

Different people want different things out of photography. For example you're changing gear like the Fonz changed girlfriends. Nothing wrong with that, photography is up to the individual to determine how they will enjoy it. But, as a general rule, most women get "into gear" less, and prefer the act of taking photographs more, and as a "learn the settings in a few days, then forget about it and get on with taking photos" the X100 is a great camera. It's invisible, much quicker than a dslr with 100 buttons and the option/temptation to switch lenses.

If you can find a shop with one, try letting her handle it and look through the gorgeous viewfinder. She might find the manual controls, small size, and limitation of one lens is appealing. Then again, she might look at a dslr and enjoy that experience more. I just want to re assert my advice that I think having a limited lens choice is a good thing for a beginner. She certainly won't be able to approach the image quality, with video and macro abilities, for the same price point.

Yeah certainly, it all depends on how deep she wants to go into it, if she wants a relatively simple camera with great IQ and isn't interested in carrying multiple lenses then it would be a great choice.

I also agree on starting with just a good lens, IMO it should be a 50mm, not 35mm, but that is just personal preference. But at the same time, I wouldn't personally want to have absolutely no choice to switch it up at some point. An Oly/Pana with the 20mm 1.7 would accomplish the same goal, but leave it open ended for further lens experimentation.

I also think the need for the X100's superb IQ is overstated a bit, at-least for a beginner. Sure its very cool that the sensor is specifically tailored to the lens, and the samples i've seen are very very good. However it is really questionable how much this is going to matter to a beginner. The difference between a Nex, a DSLR, or an X100 compared to whatever P&S camera she is currently using, I really doubt she would care/notice it.

Its like comparing a Canon 50mm 1.8 to the 1.4, when you've been using a shity slow zoom lens on a cheap P&S, certainly the 1.4 is a little better lens, but in the grand scheme, both are huge improvements.

To me recommending an X100 is akin to recommending a Leica to a beginner, I just don't see the point in it. Its a Niche luxury camera. However I have not personally used it, and maybe I would change my tune if i had.

[EarthQuake]

something fancy, not a compact, something to grow in.


To me this says DSLR/Nex/M4/3.

Now the fuji is just outside her budget but she might budge. I think she might have more fun with the fuji and learn better/faster than a canon with a kit lens?
Why not a canon with a prime you might ask? Well I believe if it's something she'll disapprove with the fuji it would be the lack of zoom.

Well, kit zoom + one nice fast prime, like the Canon EF 35mm 2.0, Sony 35mm 1.8, you can pick up a new Canon/Sony body with kit lens + decent prime for less than the cost of an X100.

[Calabi]

I would go for the GF1 and use the extra cash for the 20mm 1.7 pancake (great lens)

From what I've seen the GF1 is the almost the same price as the GF2 except perhaps a bit cheaper with no lenses.

That lense is more expensive than the base unit, which would double the price over above the GF2.

I dont know maybe I'm better off getting a second hand dslr like the thread suggests.

[EarthQuake]

Calabi: A sort of disturbing trend I've seen with the M4/3's is that each new version strips away more and more features and comes closer to P&S style operation, removing actual buttons and dials in favor of menu options. I'm not sure if this is the case with the GF1/GF2, but it would be worth looking into.

If you're looking at the GF*, you should also take a look at the Sony Nex 5, and variety of Olympus m4/3 bodies(which can use Panasonic lenses).

[Ahrkey]

Thanks for all your thoughts! Certainly helped me sort out and highlight pros&cons.

As Ben said she seems reluctant to carry around several lenses at the moment when we discussed it but wants to learn settings/photography and that's why I came to think of it. Also because I find the viewfinder nifty which was my biggest problem in the beginning when composing pictures. Entry level dslr viewfinders are so small/dark.

But then again as EQ mentions it's pricy as well as limiting if she suddenly realize she want some other optic.

The backup/alternative I've been looking at is a Canon 550/600. Most likely with a kit lens because of the aforementioned reason(Zoom=flexible but slow).

[EarthQuake]

If you go the Canon route, at the very least you should convince her to pick up the $120 EF 50mm 1.8, which is very light and small, and could easily be carried anywhere she would consider carrying a 550D. When it comes to lowlight, and portraits she will absolutely love it. A 550D is something she would likely need to have a camera bag with, and you could fit the EF 50 into a small pocket easily.

Honestly I would probably lean more towards the Nex/M43 side of it, as these are "purse-able" and the lenses are small enough to easily carry too.

[Calabi]

Well I've bought the Olympus EPL1, cant wait to start taking photos with it.

Thanks for the help guys.

[TeeJay]

I just need a little advice on what to go for now I have my budget nailed down. I've got £600 tops. That's gotta include everything for my initial kit. Also, I want to go new (I know I could get more for my £££ buying used but I just feel more comfortable going new; warranty, the 'newness factor' etc).

I also want Nikon or Canon, either is fine.

So, if you don't mind taking a sec, what would you buy for that budget? To give you an idea of UK prices, here's my local camera store, Amazon is also cheaper on some cameras.

http://www.jessops.com

[ev149]

Are you planning on taking video? If not, go for a Canon T3. It's a nice little camera for anyone starting out with DSLRs, and only costs around $500 (USD).

[TeeJay]

Are you planning on taking video? If not, go for a Canon T3 (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004J3Y9U6/). It's a nice little camera for anyone starting out with DSLRs, and only costs around $500 (USD).

Nah, no video, just stills.

Would that last me? I know my budget isn't huge but if I could get a body that won't need upgrading for a long while thatd be awesome, then I can focus all future money on glass without feeling like the body is inadequate after a little while.

[TeeJay]

How about this, good buy or not?

Only thing is it doesn't leave me any cash for a 50mm so I'd be stuck with the freebie zoom.

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/77763/Show.html?tduid=0a1b56e7f0b7e2604a2c3e021b4f3d14&url=http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/77763/Show.html

[EarthQuake]

Alright, so to recap, this is where i'm at:

Sony A560
Quantaray 24mm 2.8
Sony 35mm 1.8
Minolta 50mm 1.4 - Got for a bargain, seller didn't not weather it was the 1.4 or 1.7 version, paid about $50.... Usually sells for $2-300.
Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro
Minolta 100-200mm 4.5
Minolta 70-200mm 4.0 beercan

I bought a used A560, and what I got was an essentially new one in box with everything. Someone must have taken a few shots and returned it. It did have a front-focusing issue that I was really bummed about at first, but after doing some research, there are a few set screws that are easy to adjust. Now I've got my focus tailored to my 50/1.4 at 1.4, and it is quite sharp. I contemplated sending it off to sony, as I believe this camera is even under warranty, but the focus calibration was super easy to do, and isn't invasive/warranty voiding.

Stuff I like:
Build Quality/Ergonomics, very comfortable and feels quite solid. It would be better if it was a 2-wheel style body, but all in all a big improvement.
Good controls and interface, I think I would be a little more happy with a Canon, but the transition was pretty seamless.
Very fast shooting
Af accuracy and speed, super fast phase-detect AF in live view, makes live view... actuially worth using! Focuses in almost no light. LV/FCLV can be used to great effect to manual focus in almost total darkness.
Very good high ISO performance. ISO 100-1600 is great, set auto ISO up to 1600 and never worry about noise. 3200 is good, 6400 is usable, 12800 usable re-sized pretty small. Multi-frame noise reduction is like magic, JPEG only, but you can get very very little noise with ISO 6400, and usable ISO 25600 with MFNR. Just nuts.

This is ISO 25600, 50mm 1.4 at 4.5 MFNR gives an ok result. Much better than not getting the shot. Underexposed so the noise is quite high.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/499159/mfnr1.jpg

Now, properly exposed, noise levels are much better! Very impressive, hand held shooting indoors at 4.5 with extremely little light.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/499159/mfnr2.jpg
In body IS/SSS is a huge advantage, every lens is an IS lens. This is something that you'll just never get with a Nikon/Canon, IS primes! This also is very usefull with video work. Try video hand held with a 50/1.8 or longer on a Canon system without IS, will likely be vomit-inducing. =P

Tilt-able, super high res LCD screen, very nice, mostly usable in bright sunny light. This camera can conceivable be used in LV mode exclusively if you wanted to, it is that well integrated(AF, LCD, etc). I still use the OVF when I want to be sure I get a shot, but the LV/nice screen opens up a lot more room to get creative with your shooting style.

Excellent selection of high quality, cheap-as-hell Minolta prime glass, no slouch when compared to Canon/Nikon glass either. The Minolta 50/1.4 is one of the sharpest lenses out there. Plenty of Sony/Zeiss/3rd party lenses if you need them

Video mode is fun

What I dont like:

Limited buffer(580 is supposedly better), not often a problem
Would like to be able to customize controls a little more, I dont need a D-Range button, I would rather bind that to something more useful.
Proprietary flash shoe, had to buy a $10 adaptor to use my old bounce flash
Video mode not the best, no manual controls(however you can shoot in A/S with exposure compensation) and no AF during video mode makes it a bit quirky to use.

One worry is that it looks like Sony is dropping optical viewfinders in the future, which I'm not sure that i'm excited about. Especially since the A33/A55 have compatability issues with some of the older Sigma/Quant lenses(that generally work fine on the rest of the Alpha lineup). We'll see how the A65/A77 goes though, maybe its not that big of a deal.

Overall extremely pleased with an affordable highly productive body and a new selection of small, light weight and cheap primes.

[Ark]

Most of the new Sigma lenses work with the SLT bodies and some that don't can be sent back to Sigma, for calibration.

EQ, Have you had a chance to test the 35mm 1.8, been thinking about picking this up, always praised in the review tests for being a stellar performer for the price.

Still i would love to see some UWE primes for the APS-C Sony bodies, been looking at the Sigma 8-16 and the Tokina 11-16 and it's hard to justify there price when i'm only gonna be using the lowest focal length.

[EarthQuake]

Most of the new Sigma lenses work with the SLT bodies and some that don't can be sent back to Sigma, for calibration.

EQ, Have you had a chance to test the 35mm 1.8, been thinking about picking this up, always praised in the review tests for being a stellar performer for the price.

Still i would love to see some UWE primes for the APS-C Sony bodies, been looking at the Sigma 8-16 and the Tokina 11-16 and it's hard to justify there price when i'm only gonna be using the lowest focal length.

Yeah the sigma/quantaray lenses I have(24/2.8 and 50/2.8 macro) are 15-25 years old most likely. So likely too old/not worth it to rechip. Anyway I got them for cheap, and can resell to someone using an AXXX camera which they are fully compatible with to fund a newer AXX lens when the time comes. The Minolta 24/2.8 isn't thattttt expensive if it comes down to it.

I do have and love the 35mm 1.8. Its $150 on amazon, go buy it. No seriously, go buy the damned thing right now. Its a dirt cheap, fast and sharp ~50mm normal prime lens, light weight and not the worst build quality in the world(Slightly better than Canon 50mm 1.8, but worse than Maxxum lenses). The only reason not to get the 35/1.8 is if you're rich and love to blow your money on shit you don't need, then go get the 35/1.4 instead =P. Very sharp even at 1.8, there are few reasons not to have this lens(I can't think of any).

I'm in the market for something covering the 12-16mm (~18-24mm) range as well, options are pretty limited under $400. The older Sigma 10-20mm might be had for a little less than $300. I'm keeping an eye on these waiting to find a deal, I'd like something in the $250 range but it seems a bit unrealistic, just going to have to be patient.

[jimmypopali]

Should this thread be added to the wiki somehow? :D

[Prophecies]

Hey Earthquake, I have a question regarding shooting in very low-light situations. My friend wants me to photograph he and his band in concert, and I've never attempted shooting in such poor lighting conditions. I have a Nikon D5100, and I was looking into getting a new lens (I have the kit lens at the moment). I'm really looking into getting a nice little prime lens. I was looking into getting this one (http://www.royalphoto.com/en/camera-accessories-specification.html?catalog[name]=Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-50mm-f1.8G-Lenses&catalog[product_guids][0]=9119aa70-53fc-012e-8774-20cf30bab63e). Is there something else you'd recommend instead? I really want a nice telephoto lens (since I'm into wildlife photography). I was thinking that the telephoto would help out alot when it comes to giving nice close-up shots, but I'm guessing that for concerts, it would be wayyyyy too dark, right?

Thanks in advance!

[Xoliul]

I've shot concerts with 50mm 1.8. Mine wasn't AF-S and a tad close to my liking, but this one is so should be perfect. You'll still have to crank the ISO up quite high though.

[Prophecies]

I've shot concerts with 50mm 1.8. Mine wasn't AF-S and a tad close to my liking, but this one is so should be perfect. You'll still have to crank the ISO up quite high though.
Interesting, thanks! I'll keep that in mind.

[poopinmymouth]

The lighting can really vary though. Some venues will light up the performers so bright that you can easily use ISO 400 to get a proper exposure where they don't clip. However you definitely want a lens with a 2.8 max aperture or faster if the lighting is shitty in any way. I recently shot some concerts with a 35mm f/2 lens and I really liked how they came out.

[Prophecies]

Thanks, poop. I was really wanting a 55-200mm telephoto, but for this concert, I think I'll go straight for a prime instead. :)

[poopinmymouth]

For a quality lens, you'll be constrained to a 70-200. the longer the lens length, the worse the optical quality is going to be. The sole exception I can think of is the Canon L grade super zoom (expensive and super heavy/large) and the Sony NEX 18-200mm, both of which are excellent, but also have small max apertures.

The 50mm 1.8 is an excellent choice for basically anyone and should be a no-brainer. enjoy!

[Prophecies]

I think Nikon only makes one 70-200mm, and it is around 2300$. :P
I'd have to check other brands. This is the one I was interested in:
http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/en_US/pd/productID.213463000

But I'll take your word for it, a 50mm 1.8 it is! :)

[disanski]

50 mm f/1.8 is a must have lens for almost everybody with a camera :) It is very sharp, has 1.8 aperature and it is one of the cheapest lens out there. Also for the nikon the build quality is not bad ( as it is for Canon) and it is a very small and light lens :)
Get it and all you have to worry about is getting up near the front line if you want to grab few close up shots.
Just last weekend I was using mine 50mm, 1.8 canon lens and i was even able to grab some shots of the crowd farther away from the stage and all the lights.
One thing that sucks is if the light is poor even 1.8 and a high ISO is not going to help.
If you have any flashes and obviously you know the people you might set few of them on a different locations on the stage and then you will have no problems at all :).
Good luck and show us some images please :)

Edit: I forgot now how was it for your body but I am afraid you dont have focus motor in your body (just check to make sure). I also dont remebr and dont have time to check now but I believe there was no Auto Focus motor in the lens neither which means AF is not going to work for you. As I said just double check for this and if that is the case decide if no AF is ok for you. If it is not working for you You could go to the more expensive 50mm 1.4 ..... if you have the money.

[Prophecies]

50 mm f/1.8 is a must have lens for almost everybody with a camera :) It is very sharp, has 1.8 aperature and it is one of the cheapest lens out there. Also for the nikon the build quality is not bad ( as it is for Canon) and it is a very small and light lens :)
Get it and all you have to worry about is getting up near the front line if you want to grab few close up shots.
Just last weekend I was using mine 50mm, 1.8 canon lens and i was even able to grab some shots of the crowd farther away from the stage and all the lights.
One thing that sucks is if the light is poor even 1.8 and a high ISO is not going to help.
If you have any flashes and obviously you know the people you might set few of them on a different locations on the stage and then you will have no problems at all :).
Good luck and show us some images please :)

Edit: I forgot now how was it for your body but I am afraid you dont have focus motor in your body (just check to make sure). I also dont remebr and dont have time to check now but I believe there was no Auto Focus motor in the lens neither which means AF is not going to work for you. As I said just double check for this and if that is the case decide if no AF is ok for you. If it is not working for you You could go to the more expensive 50mm 1.4 ..... if you have the money.

Actually, the 50mm 1.8 I plan on getting does have AF-S. Which is fully supported by my body! So it's all good! I'll be sure to post pictures when I take them! :)
Thanks for the help, guys! :)

[EarthQuake]

The 50/1.8 AFS or 50mm 1.4 AFS are your best/only options on that camera body. For a concert I would think something like a 85mm/1.8 would be even better, but Nikon does not offer a 85 that will focus on your body. It sort of depends on how close you can get to the band, if you're up on stage, the 50/1.8 will be great, if you're in the crowd or a little farther back, you'll want something a bit longer.

The Nikon 35/1.8 is also a really good lens to consider, I would personally recommend having both, as the 50mm may be too tight for some instances. Really the 50/1.8 and 35/1.8 are so cheap its just silly not to buy them.

For zooms, you have to remember that where a 50mm ~75mm equiv lens need a min of 1/75th second to get a sharp shot, a 200mm lens needs 1/200th to get a sharp shot. You couple that with a slower zoom, and you're looking at the difference between ISO 400 and ISO 25600 or something. Just basically unusable. Nikon has only like 1 fast zoom that is also AF-S as well, so you really don't have any real options for low light tele zooms on Nikon. You would have to look at third party lenses, like Tamron, Sigma etc.

Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 ~500-800
Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX ~500-800

Also:
Sigma 85mm 1.4 AFS ~1000, Cheap when you look at the Nikon 85mm 1.4 AFS(~1700).

My real advice here, would be go with a Camera system that has access to fast, relatively affordable primes. If you want to do low light shooting often, your best route is fast primes, and you can only get a few fast primes in Nikon AFS. This would mean upgrading to a mid-range Nikon body, a Canon body, or a Sony body. Then you'll have much better options like:

Nikon 85mm 1.8 ~350
Canon 85mm 1.8 ~350
Canon 100mm 2.0 ~350
Minolta 85mm 1.4 ~600 (Sony)
Minolta 135mm 2.8 ~350 (Sony)
Sony 85mm 2.8 ~200

I personally would pick something like the Minolta 50/1.7 + Sony 85mm 2.8 + Minolta 135mm 2.8 +1.7/2x teleconverter before I would take a ~600ish 2.8 third party zoom lens.

Sony also has in-body image stabilization, which helps a great deal with low light shooting, but you'll never get IS with a prime lens on Canon or Nikon. It wont help with moving objects at low shutter speeds, but it does combat camera shake a significant amount, which allows you to do some fun stuff with low shutter speeds and moving subjects, like getting nice motion blur on your subject, but also getting the static environment in sharp focus.



Regardless of all that, the Nikon 50mm/1.8 AFS is an excellent, cheap lens that you will have a lot of fun with, and might suit your needs just fine. However, if you feel you're in need of more than that down the road, re-read the above^^. =D

Another very affordable option would be to get a cheap 1.7x teleconverter, this will convert your 50mm 1.8 lens to a ~85mm 2.8 lens. This should be suitable enough for low light, and provide the sort of reach you would want for a concert. I picked up a Tamron 1.7x TC for next to nothing, but you should be able to find one for about $100 or less. Or a 2x, for a 100mm/3.5 equiv lens. The worst thing about TC's in they can degrade IQ a bit, and the light loss, personally to me, I find the IQ on my Tamron(actually its a promaster, re-branded) 1.7x is completely acceptable, and provides a better alternative to simply cropping the image in post. This is the one I have: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Promaster-1-7x-AF-Teleconverter-Nikon-Nikkor-NIB-/220833240726?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item336aafd696#ht_537wt_1185 Unfortunately i'm not sure if it is compatible with AF-S lenses.

If the venue has reasonable ceilings, IE: not a concert hall with 5 story ceilings, you can pick up a cheap bounce flash, bounce it off the ceiling for ambient light and use pretty much any lens you feel like. If you're in some regular old bar or something, this may be an option.

[Prophecies]

Wow, thanks alot for the write-up EQ.
I do not plan on changing my camera any time soon. I just got it a few months back. While it *is* really unfortunate that the body doesn't have an autofocus motor, the camera itself really compensates. The sensor is absolutely incredible, and I've been truly satisfied with it so far. Like I mentioned above, I'm really into landscape and wildlife photography, so I don't think I'll have a need for a wide-range of primes. I'm almost always outdoors when there is plenty of light to see by, so a decent Telephoto zoom will do the job just fine. I just figured that with the concert coming up, I could use a prime in my collection. Boy am I glad I did, though!


I just went out and bought the Nikkor AF-S 50mm F/1.8. And all I have to say is... holy crap.
When I read all about you guys praising the Prime lens like some kind of god, I thought you were over-hyping up a little too much. But after using the D5100's kit lens (18-55mm, F/3.5-5.6) for about 3-4 months, and moving on to a really nice prime, the difference is astonishing. I was mindblown at how much clearer, sharper, and faster this prime is compared to my other kit lens. It doesn't even begin to compare. While my kit lens does perform better when I want to do close-ups, as well as landscape shots, the Prime lens blows it out of the water for just about anything else.

I now understand what the praise was all about.


Once again, thanks for the help, everyone! Very much appreciated!

[EarthQuake]

Yeah, primes are where its at. Its really a huge shame that these Nikon bodies do not have a focus motor. Just a few lenses like:

16mm
18mm
20mm
24mm
28mm

That you can get for Canon/Sony but not for low end Nikon, just sucks. Where these lenses hit their prime in the 4.0-5.6 range, the AFS cheap zooms for Nikon start there, and need to be stopped down to F8 to get any sharpness. If you're shooting wide sunsets shots or something, this means cranking up the ISO another 2 stops, further reducing image quality.

I would try to keep an open mind about your camera body. People like to get really hardcore into a certain brand or specific body, and its a bit irrational. Unless you've got $2000+ tied up in lenses, it is actually very easy to switch systems, and Nikon, Canon and Sony body's of the same class/year will provide virtually identical image quality. If you ever go down that road, where you think you need to buy a very expensive 2.8 zoom because Nikon doesn't offer any primes you can use, you'll likely be better served just switching bodies(again even to a mid-range Nikon body).

I mean, I switched from a Canon to Sony system, and it took me about a week to sell all my gear, and buy the new gear. And that was body + $1250 in lenses.

Now, enough ranting. Here are some suggestions for higher quality lenses than your kit lens that fit your type of shooting and may pair better with your 50 as far as IQ goes.

Ultra Wide for landscapes:
Tamron 10-24mm 3.5-4.5 ~400-500
Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6 ~300-500
Tokina 12-24mm 4.0 ~300-500

Fast standard zoom:
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 ~300-400

Tele zoom
Nikon 70-300mm VR 4-5.6 $250-400
Nikon 55-200mm VR 4-5.6 $150-250
Nikon 55-300mm VR 4.5-5.6 $300-350

So you have some options in the under $500 range.

[e-freak]

hey, i didn't read through everything so beg with me if this came up already: i have a 350d for years now (since '05) and now i'm desperately looking into a new body which can shoot film as well. now, i used to say the next body I'd get wouldn't be another "entry level" dslr. looking at the price differences though: is it better to get a 550d or should i save up for the 7d? I have a few OKish lenses and would rather buy one or two more lenses then the more expensive body but read some bad reviews on the 550d's quality :/

[EarthQuake]

Well, the 550D, 60D, and 7D all share the same sensor(600D too). So, the advantages here of the higher end bodys are ergonomics and controls.

You might be able to find a Used 60D body for around the same cost as a new 550D body, maybe just a little more. This will give you the extra control wheel and more "pro" feel. I don't think you should buy a 7D unless there is some really specific reason you need one. I personally wouldn't spend that much money on a camera if it wasn't making any money from using it.

The 7d has the ultra high end features like environment seals and really sturdy construction, that you would likely never need unless you were a professional photographer.

Now having said all that, the 550D in itself is an excellent camera, and a massive upgrade over your 350D. Go to the store and try one out, if it feels good in your hands, buy it! Its the same sensor so there really is no difference in IQ between the three. Its just a matter of how it feels, and how you need it to perform. I like the feel of the 550D much better than the 350D too, I didn't think I would want one until I felt it in my hands.

The 7D is also quite heavy, the 550D is a bit light, the 60D is a pretty good weight. Some people "complain" that the 60D doesn't have a place between the 550D and 7D, but I think there is plenty of room between the low-end ergonomics of the 550D, and the high end price of the 7D. In this regard, the 60D fits in very well.

Looking at prices, you can get a used 60D body for $750-950, which is a bargain compared to a new 550D.

What specifically are you worried about with the quality of the 550D? Really I would go for the cheapest body that fits your needs, and spend the rest on glass. Lenses lenses lenses - its where the money should go.

[Prophecies]

I was wondering if there was any way to help fix a reversed lens to your camera body. I was experimenting with a reversed lens for macro the other day, and I was blown away by how close you can focus. I'd get a close-up filter or extension tubes, but they're pretty damn expensive. Perhaps this would be a cheaper alternative?

[poopinmymouth]

Yeah you can buy things, but knock off extension tubes are cheap. You can also take a cheap older lens and use it's mount to attach your lens. Look for generic extension tubes on ebay.

[EarthQuake]

There are a couple really cheap AF macro lenses you can buy too, if your camera had an AF motor. =P Oh well....

Personally I find MF macro quite difficult, especially with a lens that has a short focus throw and is not designed for macro. You may want to simply consider buying a Nikon Micro 55mm 2.8/3.5 AI lens.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Micro-NIKKOR-55mm-1-3-5-997733-Camera-Lens-/400194656286?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item5d2d75d81e

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Micro-Nikkor-55mm-f-2-8-AIS-enlargin-filters-/260857377729?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item3cbc4fb3c1

Because the depth of field is so narrow with macro photography, you're going to want to look into a replacement focus screen as well(split prism etc). Manual focusing with a macro lens on a DSLR is a major pain unless you're stopping down to F16.


$10 for a 52mm Nikon F mount reversing adaptor though: http://www.ebay.com/itm/52mm-Lens-Reverse-Mount-Macro-Adapter-4-Nikon-D100-D200-/380352720005?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item588ec9ec85

[Prophecies]

Hah! Yeah, I wish the body had a motor, but it isn't as big a deal as you'd think. Seriously.
I've yet to try true macro photography, so I don't know whether or not it is difficult to manually focus. I was always under the impression that AF was kind of useless, since all you'd need to do is back away 1mm, or move ahead 1mm to get your things in focus, since the DoF is so shallow.

This is actually the first time I've heard of interchangeable focus screens. I did a bit of research, but I am still a little confused as to what they do, and how they benefit various lens. I checked out my lens manual, and it has a list of recommended focus screens. I'm totally confused, now. What makes a focus screen better than another? How do some lens (in my case, a 70-300mm f:4.5-5.6 lens) benefit from certain focus screens?

[disanski]

Focus screen sits up above your mirror and you can see it when you open your camera. It does not have so much to do with different lens than with helping you manually focus better. I have an older film camera that has one of them and it is so much easier to manually focus with it.
There are different kinds and i am not very familiar myself, but imagine that you have AA in your viewfinder and all the edges are jagged. When you focus on something it becomes perfectly clear and sharp as the rest has those jagged edges. That kind of focusing screen is the prism. There are many different kinds and perhaps for macro there is something even better.

I wanted to get one of those when I needed longer and faster lens for my portraits, but did not have money for new lens so I was going to get older lens and use focus screen to help e focus. It turns out the once that are worth it are very expensive :( so i never got one.

One last thing to consider is - you have cropped body and the viewfinder is not very bright ( i guess) and it is also very small so this will make it even more difficult to focus manually.

You can try to manually focus without new focusing screen and see how you gonna like it.

[EarthQuake]

Hah! Yeah, I wish the body had a motor, but it isn't as big a deal as you'd think. Seriously.

It really depends on what you're doing, I mean I've wrote pages and pages on the topic now, when you want to step up to better lenses, prime lenses, etc its going to be a major problem. If you just want to stick with the cheap AF-S zooms, its not really a big deal. For me it would be a massive problem.

Macro is another good example, there are probably about 10-20 AF macro primes for Nikon mount, but very few AF-S. But anyway, I mentioned it just as a joke/gentle ribbing... Mostly... =P


I've yet to try true macro photography, so I don't know whether or not it is difficult to manually focus. I was always under the impression that AF was kind of useless, since all you'd need to do is back away 1mm, or move ahead 1mm to get your things in focus, since the DoF is so shallow.
You can do this, but I mean, you might take 30 shots before you get a usable shot. MF macro work without a focus screen is extremely difficult, again especially with a lens not designed for macro, which only has a 90 degree or less focus throw, focusing will be very clunky.

There are some people who do a lot of MF macro work even with AF lenses, I think mostly because these people are simply accustomed to working like this. If you try doing MF macro work with lets say, a bee or another moving insect, you're going to have a very tough time with it. Manually focusing with a macro lens, on a tripod, with a static subject is much easier.

The 1mm forward/back is actually an argument FOR AF, not against it. If you think about it, lets say you dial in your focus just right, then move 3mm back just before you took the shot. Shit, your focus is off. Now you've gotta refocus or try to get back into that exact spot again. Its extremely time consuming.

On the other hand, if you have an AF macro lens, you take the shot as soon as the lens catches focus, if you happen to move in the spit second between focus confirm and the shutter firing, you just take the shot again.

AF in macro is far from without flaws though, the AF tends to be slow, loud and hunt back and forth to find focus as well as not work very well in poor lighting. This depends on the quality of the lens generally. I still prefer AF, or at the very least to have the option of AF on macro lenses.

Manual focusing macros can be an interesting challenge, and I'm sure you'll have fun experimenting with it and cheap options like macro tubes and reversing rings, but in the longer term depending on what you want to do with it, you'll probably find yourself looking for a more dedicated solution.


This is actually the first time I've heard of interchangeable focus screens. I did a bit of research, but I am still a little confused as to what they do, and how they benefit various lens. I checked out my lens manual, and it has a list of recommended focus screens. I'm totally confused, now. What makes a focus screen better than another? How do some lens (in my case, a 70-300mm f:4.5-5.6 lens) benefit from certain focus screens?In addition to what Disanksi says, different focus screens are designed for different type of lenses, wide vs telephoto, slow vs fast. In your case you likely want to buy a cheap, Chinese made basic spit-prism screen, as you can find them for about $30. If you buy a proper Nikon brand screen, it will likely cost the same as a MF dedicated macro lens or a cheap AF macro lens.

Oh, one last thing!!! With cheap AF-S lens, you do not have a proper aperture ring. This means when using cheap tubes, or using a reversing ring you will not be able to stop the lens down. This is a major issue, as a lens wide open doing macro is an EXTREMELY fine DOF. You probabbly want to be closer to the F5.6-8 range to get even a reasonably wide DOF, and F8-32 depending on exactly what you're doing.

Again an AI Nikkor Micro 55mm 2.8/3.5 lens would be a much better choice here, if you have no interest in AF macros. You can actually buy AF macro tubes, and use your 50/1.8 as a macro lens with AF and everything, but those tubes cost about as much as a MF macro lens or a cheap AF macro lens.

[edit] These are actually fairly cheap: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Auto-Focus-Macro-Extension-Tube-NIKON-AF-AF-S-L8E-/230673049065?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35b52f65e9
us seller: http://www.ebay.com/itm/AF-Macro-Extension-Tubes-Nikon-D3-D3S-D3X-D90-NEW-/300549900503?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item45fa2b88d7

[Prophecies]

I agree entirely with what you've said in the past pages, actually! It makes perfect sense. I guess I'm just really happy with my current setup/lens. My current lens setup is :
-18-55mm F/3,5-5.6 (kit lens)
-50mm f/1.8
-70-300mm F/4.5-5.6

I'm pretty satisfied with what I have for now. Sure, a few cheap primes here and there would be nice, but I don't have that much cash to throw around, either, nor do I actually need more lenses.

But once again, I agree, AF bodies are nice. Very nice actually, and it's something that NEVER came to mind when purchasing my D5100. It's my first DSLR, and nobody ever mentioned it to me when I bought it, and it wasn't really mentioned much in reviews, either. I'll be sure to get an AF body when I upgrade someday.

Regardless, I have nothing but good things to say about the D5100, apart from the no in-body AF. :P

I was actually looking at close-up filters rather than extension tubes. I've been told that extension tubes have only marginally greater magnification when used with Telephoto lens. On the other hand, close-up filters provide a very big boost to magnification when used with a telephoto. I've really been wanting to try a close-up filter on my 70-300mm, not sure what to expect, though. There are lots of cheap filters on ebay, I'll give them a show.

Thanks a lot for all your macro advice! It's definitely something I want to try soon! I still have that amazing macro shot of yours in mind. (the one with the bee in the flower).

[EarthQuake]

I actually really like the 50mm-85mm range for macro, IMO tubes+your 50 would work pretty well. With a longer lens it can be much harder to get a steady shot handheld, and the working distance is going to be pretty far. I used a 100mm macro for a while and I just felt like I had to be too far from the subject.

I used my Sigma 50 2.8, with a 1.7x TC(~85) on it for that bee shot, I really like the working distance there, and being able to shoot at 50mm too of course. I use live view generally with the tilty screen on m A560, makes it really easy to get up close without being a contortionist with your eye buried in the viewfinder.

The negative with close focus filters vs tubes is that they degrade IQ, esp when stacked, but they're cheap and fun to play with, so its not a big deal.

[Prophecies]

I actually really like the 50mm-85mm range for macro, IMO tubes+your 50 would work pretty well. With a longer lens it can be much harder to get a steady shot handheld, and the working distance is going to be pretty far. I used a 100mm macro for a while and I just felt like I had to be too far from the subject.

I used my Sigma 50 2.8, with a 1.7x TC(~85) on it for that bee shot, I really like the working distance there, and being able to shoot at 50mm too of course. I use live view generally with the tilty screen on m A560, makes it really easy to get up close without being a contortionist with your eye buried in the viewfinder.

The negative with close focus filters vs tubes is that they degrade IQ, esp when stacked, but they're cheap and fun to play with, so its not a big deal.

Hmm that's an interesting suggestion. The one issue I can see with using my 50mm f/1.8 (correct me if I'm wrong, but adding a TC sacrifices lens speed for magnification, right?), is that the minimum focusing distance is actually quite long. I can focus MUCH closer with my 18-55mm, but of course, it's nowhere nearly as fast, or sharp.

IIRC, the 50mm prime's minimum focusing distance is 0,45m, whereas the 18-55's is 0,28m.

Will a TC help out with this a lot?

[EarthQuake]

A TC actually will help, but tubes will help even more. A TC wont actually increase the MFD, but it will give you a 2x(or 1.4, 1.7 etc) crop, so higher magnification. I use the TC with my Sigma 50/2.8, which does 1:1 macro reproduction, it can focus to just a couple inch. With even a short tube, you should be able to focus very close with your 50/1.8, and since a tube is literally just... a tube extending the lens out, there is no glass to reduce IQ like there is with a TC, or screw on filters.

Your kit will focus closer though, without any tubes or what-have-you. Generally for macro stuff people like sharp lenses, but I mean unless you're doing large prints, its likely not going to be a problem. I forget about the short MFD most kit zooms have, just because I never really use them. But the fact of the matter is that your 50mm/1.8 is really, REALLY sharp at about F4-5.6, and your kit only starts to get sharp around F8, and then softens up because of diffraction (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-diffraction.shtml) on APS-C.

However, with macro work, you might be stopping down past F8, at which point diffraction is going to be your biggest issue with either a cheap kit lens or a sharp prime. For instance, this shot was at F5 and really could have been stopped a bit more to get a bit deeper DOF, as it is the edges of his wings are a little too blury and the flower as well - of course that is subjective to the intent, but you get the idea.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/499159/bug1.jpg

[Prophecies]

The problem I see with extension tubes is that you lose the ability to autofocus. Does this apply to camera bodies that have AF motors in them as well?
The only ones I've seen that actually support AF are the Kenko extension tubes, and they're pretty darn expensive, comparatively to others you can find on ebay.

[EarthQuake]

Those tubes I linked to retain AF, you just need to make sure you get tubes with the electrical contacts in them.

[Prophecies]

I have a question regarding filters in general. I am starting to have a wider variety of lenses (3 so far), and I'm looking into getting a polarizing filter and a grad filter as well. However, each and every one of my lenses have a different filter size. I was wondering if the best thing to do would be to get a 77mm filter since it's the largest filter size I can get for "normal" lenses (so to speak), and just get a step-up ring for each lense. I'm assuming this will prevent me from using lense hoods, right?

It's either that, or get 2-3 different filters for every single lense I have. Things will start to get out hand quickly enough. Who wants to carry 10+ filters around all the time? And lets face it, Circular polarizing filters aren't cheap. :(

[EarthQuake]

Well, cheap filters are cheap! I have a $20 set of 77mm Vivitar UV/CPL/ND4 that are just fine. Would $50-100 filters be better? Probably, but would I notice the difference in real use? Probably not.

Step up rings are on option, but then you've gotta bring step up rings, or always have them installed on your lenses. If your base is 77mm, that is much wider than a lens that needs 49, 52, 55mm or so. So there is extra bulk you have to consider anyway, plus the annoyance of using them.

If you have a LOT of lenses, I would consider grouping similar filter threads, ie: 82-77-72, 67-62-58, 55-52-49 as the bulk of going from say 82 to 72 is much smaller than 49 to 77. With three lenses... its probably not worth the effort, just buy a few cheap filters.

[Andreas]

Can anyone recommend a good waterproof/underwater/rugged use camera? Maybe one that's currently on the cheap? ;P

[Andreas]

What to look for in a tripod? Especially for stabilising while shooting video? What tripods would you guys recommend?

[Lane]

Can anyone recommend a good waterproof/underwater/rugged use camera? Maybe one that's currently on the cheap? ;P

Honestly, there aren't any good ones at a sane price. I bought a 250$ under water camera for snorkeling and it started acting weird the first time I took it out. The guides said they have about ten backups and go through them all monthly.

The GoPro is the only real reliable camera and casing I've seen and used but it has very poor focusing quality under water. Everything will be blurry. Hopefully the newer models will have improved this problem.

What to look for in a tripod? Especially for stabilising while shooting video? What tripods would you guys recommend?

I have a cheap one, my only regret is the controls after its tightened up are pretty stiff/jerky and it handicaps the video. It's also very light and can shiver a little bit when it really shouldn't. The next one I get I'll definitely be testing it out to see how smooth the rotation is with the camera weight on it and locked in. I have a 5D2 and it's pretty cumbersome to manage on the crappy tripod.

Scoping legs are a must, they're really handy for unlevel surfaces and varying heights.

[Andreas]

Honestly, there aren't any good ones at a sane price. I bought a 250$ under water camera for snorkeling and it started acting weird the first time I took it out. The guides said they have about ten backups and go through them all monthly.

The GoPro is the only real reliable camera and casing I've seen and used but it has very poor focusing quality under water. Everything will be blurry. Hopefully the newer models will have improved this problem.


I went with this one in the end;

Amazon.com: Panasonic Lumix TS4 12.1 TOUGH Waterproof Digital Camera with 4.6x Optical Zoom (Orange): Electronics

Hopefully it works as advertised. Any tripod recommendations you guys have would be welcome!

[EarthQuake]

What do you want out of your tripod?
Big, heavy and bulky for extra support?
Small, light and compact so its easy to take with you?
Budget? Tripods range from $30 to hundreds, even thousands.

You also might consider a monopod, if all you need is a bit of extra stability but still want some freedom of motion.

If you want to do a lot of pans and things like that, you might need a pretty good tripod head. I've always found it difficult to do a smooth pan in video with the few cheap tripods I have.


As far as underwater cameras go, really I think a lot of the cheaper consumer models are more "water proof" ie: for splashing around on the beach, not really depth proof for operating continuously under water. What you can get is an underwater enclosure for a DSLR, that would probably be the most reliable, but then you're out a couple hundred for the enclosure and $500+ for the DSLR, plus any additional lenses you might want. So it really depends on how serious you are and what exactly you're trying to do.

For less demanding work the camera you decided to go with is probably fine, it looks like its rated depth proof up to 12m? That sounds pretty good if it works.

[Prophecies]

I have a question regarding macro lenses in general. I've done quite a bit of research lately, and I'm quite torn between the following.

Getting a great dedicated macro lense, which works absolutely great as a portrait lense as well: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2160/AF-S-VR-Micro-NIKKOR-105mm-f%252F2.8G-IF-ED.html
(after checking reviews, the IQ is just as good, if not better than the 70-200mm 2.8, as it's a very high quality prime lense)

Or, I was thinking of going with something like an old 50mm f:1.8, with an aperture ring. Have that reversed at the end of extension tubes.

Now, my main concern here is working distance. I plan on taking close up shots of insects, and moving critters. I'm unsure as to what the working distance on the latter option would be. I don't want something that requires me to be too close. That is where the first option really shines. It's got a 1:1 magnification ratio, and being 105mm, it gives you a good amount of working distance, which is perfect. I was hoping I could get something closer to 2:1, however. If I went with the dedicated macro lense, I'd probably need to get extension tubes to avoid losing IQ.

It's really a huge debate for me right now. I know the dedicated lense is quite expensive, ( from what I've seen, it's an incredible piece of glass) but I recently had someone buy a huge print from me, and offered to buy a new lense for me as payment. Essentially, the money is going towards a macro lense setup, since he'd love to see macro shots.

Anyone here have any experience with macro setups?

Thanks in advance!

[Ark]

Id say if your main subject is gonna be insects or stuff that's likely to move if disturbed then the 105mm will serve you better rather than losing the shot with the 50mm because you have to get up closer.

Although if you have a cropped sensor, you'll gain a little reach from that.

[EarthQuake]

I have a question regarding macro lenses in general. I've done quite a bit of research lately, and I'm quite torn between the following.

Getting a great dedicated macro lense, which works absolutely great as a portrait lense as well: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2160/AF-S-VR-Micro-NIKKOR-105mm-f%252F2.8G-IF-ED.html
(after checking reviews, the IQ is just as good, if not better than the 70-200mm 2.8, as it's a very high quality prime lense)

Or, I was thinking of going with something like an old 50mm f:1.8, with an aperture ring. Have that reversed at the end of extension tubes.

Now, my main concern here is working distance. I plan on taking close up shots of insects, and moving critters. I'm unsure as to what the working distance on the latter option would be. I don't want something that requires me to be too close. That is where the first option really shines. It's got a 1:1 magnification ratio, and being 105mm, it gives you a good amount of working distance, which is perfect. I was hoping I could get something closer to 2:1, however. If I went with the dedicated macro lense, I'd probably need to get extension tubes to avoid losing IQ.

It's really a huge debate for me right now. I know the dedicated lense is quite expensive, ( from what I've seen, it's an incredible piece of glass) but I recently had someone buy a huge print from me, and offered to buy a new lense for me as payment. Essentially, the money is going towards a macro lense setup, since he'd love to see macro shots.

Anyone here have any experience with macro setups?

Thanks in advance!

If you're doing insects I wouldn't bother with a reversed lens + tubes, its going to be pretty slow to work like that and the working distance won't be enough.

90-105mm is a good working distance I would say.

Jumping straight to the Nikkor 105mm 2.8 VR isn't a particularly good idea, that's basically the most expensive lens in that range in your system.

If you're willing to go used you have a lot of options:
Under $600
Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX DG OS - closest to the Nikon VR

Under $400
Nikkor 105mm 2.8 AF "D"(I think its a D, the older version regardless)
Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX DG

Under $300:
Tamron 90mm 2.9 AF Di
Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX

Under $200 - I think these are all only 1:2 though, so beware. Usually they come with a close up lens to get 1:1
Tamron 90mm 2.8 AF SP
Sigma 90mm 2.8
"Plastic fantastic" Vivitar/Promaster/Cosina/etc 90mm 3.5. This lens has horrible build and slow/super loud af, but optically its awesome. You might find one under $100 even.

New the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Di is only $450 on adorama. The Sigma EX DG OS is about $700-750. Would I pay $750 for the Sigma when the Nikon is $900? No, but I would look really hard at those used lenses in the $200-400 range.

Now as far as 2:1 or greater than 1:1 in general, you're going to have to pick up some extension tubes or a dioptic/close up filter. You can get a set of generic AF tubes for probably $100. Something like a Nikon PK-13 MF tube for $30. AF at over 1:1 will be pretty much useless anyway, so a MF tube is good idea.

Also keep in mind a lot of these lenses will be screw drive, I don't know which Nikon body you have, but if you have a lower end body without the AF motor these will only be MF lenses. In which case Nikon made a lot of nice MF macros that you can get for cheap as well, and will probably be easier to use if fulltime MF is something you want to do(MF lenses always feel a bit better than AF lenses).


Edit: As far as a portrait lens, well, here is the thing. While they are often similar focal lengths they are usually designed with completely different objectives.
A. Portrait lenses are fast(usually 1.4 or 1.8 ), should focus quickly(though don't tell that to the EF 85/1.2L) are soft wide open except in the center, have nice bokeh, etc.
B. Macro lenses are slow(2.8 and slower), usually very sharp even wide open, perhaps "too sharp" for portrait work, designed to be sharp across the frame for reproduction work, slow to focus, etc.

So you CAN use a macro lens for a portrait lens, sure, its just not going to be ideal. Though something like the Tamron 60mm 2.0 macro may be a decent compromise. 90-105mm is pretty long for portraits on APS-C.

Also if you go for an af macro and want to use it as more of a general purpose lens, make sure to get one with a focus limiter.

[Prophecies]

I figured as much. Now here's the thing.
The nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR is actually cheaper than the Sigma equivalent at my local shop (835$ for the Nikkor vs 875$).
The issue with the other, less expensive counterparts, is the fact that they all extend when focusing. No internal focus, which may be an issue. It also causes problems if ever I wish to get a lens-mounted ring flash, I'd assume.

I will definitely look at the other cheaper alternatives you listed, though I have always been skeptical about buying old, used glass, especially when I'm putting in 300+$ into it. I've yet to see any negative reviews about Nikons 105mm.
I am not concerned about AF ability at such high magnification, especially if I'm going to attempt 2:1.

Ok, now I'm beginning to sound like I have already made up my mind about the 105mm, but I can assure you that isn't the case.

The reason why I was considering a cheaper lense setup, is because it would allow me to put some money into a decent macro flash. Which is why I even considered a wider prime + tubes in the first place.


About portrait lenses, is there really such thing as "too sharp"? I've read about people saying that, but how exactly can that be a problem? It is very, very easy to soften an image in post, rather than having to sharpen it, no?
Isn't the famous 70-200mm f/2.8 often used for portraits because of its stunning sharpness?

Oh, and as for the tubes, I agree about getting MF tubes, but won't you lose the control you have over your aperture?

[EarthQuake]

I figured as much. Now here's the thing.
The nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR is actually cheaper than the Sigma equivalent at my local shop (835$ for the Nikkor vs 875$).
The issue with the other, less expensive counterparts, is the fact that they all extend when focusing. No internal focus, which may be an issue. It also causes problems if ever I wish to get a lens-mounted ring flash, I'd assume.


Most macros extend when focusing, shouldn't really be an issue. The Tamron 60/2.0 is an IF design though. Ring flashes tend to have a stretchy cord thing. People have been using non-IF macros for decades so, I wouldn't worry too much about it.


I will definitely look at the other cheaper alternatives you listed, though I have always been skeptical about buying old, used glass, especially when I'm putting in 300+$ into it. I've yet to see any negative reviews about Nikons 105mm.
I am not concerned about AF ability at such high magnification, especially if I'm going to attempt 2:1.
I have 2+ thousand dollars in AF lenses currently, and only one was purchased new(sigma 50/1.4, wanted the warranty and used prices barely save you anything). Some of my lenses are over 25 years old. Lenses generally last a long, long time. Buy from KEH if you're worried about getting a "bad" one, they have a nice return policy, or buy from eBay sellers that accept returns for any reason(will be a little harder to find).

Is a used lens fractionally more likely to fail? Sure, but is it really a significant concern? I don't think so, any lens can fail at any time for any number of reasons. If you buy a new $900 lens instead of a used $300 lens, what are you really doing? You could buy 3 $300 lenses in the extremely unlikely case that the first two break and still break even. After you warranty

Even still, $450 for a brand new Tamron 90mm with 6 year warranty. http://www.adorama.com/TM9028NK.html


Ok, now I'm beginning to sound like I have already made up my mind about the 105mm, but I can assure you that isn't the case.

The reason why I was considering a cheaper lense setup, is because it would allow me to put some money into a decent macro flash. Which is why I even considered a wider prime + tubes in the first place.
Another reason not to splurge on the most expensive lens in its class. Look, buying the top-end lens in a certain class before you really know why you need it over the lower end models is just silly. Its like buying a D3x/D800/etc because you "want to get into photography". Buy something more reasonable, sell it in the future if you find some reason that you need the 2-3x more expensive lens. Used lenses tend to hold their value very well, and actually go up in value with inflation generally. I'm sure the Nikon 105mm VR is a great lens, the thing is, so are a lot of the other options.


About portrait lenses, is there really such thing as "too sharp"? I've read about people saying that, but how exactly can that be a problem? It is very, very easy to soften an image in post, rather than having to sharpen it, no?
Isn't the famous 70-200mm f/2.8 often used for portraits because of its stunning sharpness?
Too sharp is getting subjective, I won't really try to persuade you either way there, better just to try it yourself and see. Generally optics is all about compromise, sharpness at all cost vs bokeh etc.


Oh, and as for the tubes, I agree about getting MF tubes, but won't you lose the control you have over your aperture?Yes, luckily many nikon and 3rd party nikon lenses have proper aperture rings, newer nikon "G" glass doesn't though.

Oh looking at it, the 105 VR is screw drive AF too, thats really lame if you've got a low end body. Even if you don't need af at 2:1, you will want it at 1:2-infinity. Especially if you want to use it as a portrait lens(unless you're taking photos of statues that is). So if you've got a low end body, instead of spending $900 on a lens, put that money toward a body that will open up the whole nikon AF lens collection.

[Prophecies]

You make many valid arguments, and have given me much to consider. This is exactly why I came to post here.

By the way, you are probably looking at the wrong 105mm. The old version. The new version is AF-S (105mm f/2.8 VR), meaning it focuses with all Nikon bodies, low, or high end.

What can you tell me about flash setups? There's so many different types, I'm honestly a little bit overwhelmed. I don't plan on spending the big bucks anytime soon, not until I feel confident in the research I've done.

From what I can tell, ring flashes such as this are ideal for macro:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/em-140-dg-macro-flash-sigma

Though, I've seen so many speedlights used, with a super ghetto DIY diffused taped on to them, like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mauhorng/3349814093/

I've always been an available-light-only shooter, so artificial lighting is new territory for me as well. I have much to learn.

[EarthQuake]

You make many valid arguments, and have given me much to consider. This is exactly why I came to post here.

By the way, you are probably looking at the wrong 105mm. The old version. The new version is AF-S (105mm f/2.8 VR), meaning it focuses with all Nikon bodies, low, or high end.

Yep, you're right, the latest is AF-S. Which makes a compelling agrument for simply buying it instead of a new body/cheaper lens combo. Though you might find yourself in the same situation the next time you're looking to buy a specialty lens, so still something to consider for the long term.

Though there are still huge gaps in Nikon's lineup that aren't AF-S, they have been doing a good job of coming out with new AF-S lenses recently, and I'm sure that will continue to be the case going forward.


What can you tell me about flash setups? There's so many different types, I'm honestly a little bit overwhelmed. I don't plan on spending the big bucks anytime soon, not until I feel confident in the research I've done.

From what I can tell, ring flashes such as this are ideal for macro:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/em-140-dg-macro-flash-sigma

Though, I've seen so many speedlights used, with a super ghetto DIY diffused taped on to them, like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mauhorng/3349814093/

I've always been an available-light-only shooter, so artificial lighting is new territory for me as well. I have much to learn.I am not at all a flash expert, especially when it comes to macro flash but yeah, ring flashes like that Sigma are commonly used.

[Schultzie]

Even though this site mainly focuses on using Nikon, all of the principals and techniques can be applied to other flash systems. It's pretty much the bible with regards to using flash:

http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html

[Prophecies]

Oh wow. Thanks a bunch, Schultzie! Much appreciated! :)

[Schultzie]

Not a problem.

[d1ver]

Hey guys, my girlfriend is really inclined to do professional photography, but we can't settle on a camera yet.
To choose she went through a lot of her favorite images on on-line galleries(like 500px and such) and wrote down what cameras do they use. Canon 5d rose to the top.
The thing is it's pretty damn expensive and I have some of my photography friends tell me to go for a cheaper camera and go all out on lenses.

This makes sense to me, but to convince my GF I need some visual aid. Like show her images from a cheaper camera, but with an awesome lens that look better then 5d images. Or at least just know the specific lenses worth looking into.

What's your take on all of this? I would really appreciate some help.
She mostly does parties, weddings, personal photo sessions. Nothing that would warrant a fisheye or something too special.

Thank you very much in advance.

[EarthQuake]

Hey guys, my girlfriend is really inclined to do professional photography, but we can't settle on a camera yet.
To choose she went through a lot of her favorite images on on-line galleries(like 500px and such) and wrote down what cameras do they use. Canon 5d rose to the top.
The thing is it's pretty damn expensive and I have some of my photography friends tell me to go for a cheaper camera and go all out on lenses.

This makes sense to me, but to convince my GF I need some visual aid. Like show her images from a cheaper camera, but with an awesome lens that look better then 5d images. Or at least just know the specific lenses worth looking into.

What's your take on all of this? I would really appreciate some help.
She mostly does parties, weddings, personal photo sessions. Nothing that would warrant a fisheye or something too special.

Thank you very much in advance.

The camera doesn't make the photos, the photographer makes the photos. Buying the best camera won't make the best photos, and buying something less than the absolute best doesn't mean you wont be able to take amazing photos.

Generally the better the photographer is, the more expensive camera gear they have. This doesn't mean more expensive camera gear makes you a better photographer, its the reverse really, the better you get the high quality gear you will need for various reasons. So her favorite photos being taken with very nice cameras doesn't really mean anything, it just means that the best/most sucessful photographers out there can afford nice cameras. If the same photographers were using cheap cameras, she would still like the images they create, because again its the photographer, not the camera, especially in the DSLR range where the differences in actual image quality between any camera made in the same time frame-ish are extremely small.

Ok, so lets just run through the basic "teirs" of cameras here, focusing on DSLRs of course.

1. High end professional/sport cameras. These are the absolute top of the line. The Canon 1D series, Nikon D3/D4, etc. What do these offer over lesser cameras? Really high shooting rates, very complex AF systems for tracking fast moving sports, super heavy duty build and weather sealing for using in extreme conditions. These run $5000+ generally

2. Mid range professional full frame cameras. This is your Canon 5D MKIII, Your Nikon D700, D800, Sony A99 etc. These offer generally the same image quality as the top tier, usually just less extreme feature sets. Often still weather sealed but not built to stand up to the same working conditions. This range is usually updated more frequently so you will often actually see more features than the top teir. $2500+

3. Low end full frame cameras. This is a fairly new market, the Canon 6D and Nikon D600 qualify. These are very similar to the 2nd tier but with a few less features. These cameras will take photos every bit as nice as the two top teirs because the sensors used are on the same level. $2000+

4. Professional/High end APS-C(crop) cameras. This is the top end of the "consumer" range. Like the top end of the professional market these cameras are often geared towards sports shooters, with high frame rates and complex AF systems for tracking moving subjects. This is the Canon 7D, the Nikon D7000, Sony A77, etc. $1000+

5. Mid-low range APS-C DSLR cameras. Pretty much everything else here. Very good cameras generally but usually lacking basic ergonomic things like dual control dials that would make them poor choices for professional work.

You can also pick up a slightly older model of some of these higher teirs, like the Canon 5D MKII, Nikon D700, Sony A900, etc for under $2000. These cameras are a few years old now but were the top of the second teir when they came out, and will still produce very very good images.

If you don't know the difference between a fullframe or APS-C camera, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference in the photos you take either. The basic differences is: with equivalent lenses a fullframe camera can make the background a little more blurry (which is great for portraits, subject isolation) and FF cameras generally will provide 1-2 stops better high ISO performance, which means less noise when it gets dark.

As far as buying lenses over cameras. This is absolutely 100% what you need to do. Just think about it, if you buy a $3000 camera but have no money left to spend on good lenses, what are you going to do? Buy a $100 lens to put on your $3000 camera? If you're shooting weddings professionally, in the Canon system you're going to be looking at Canon L lenses, many of which cost $1000+ PER LENS. So you can't blow your budget on a camera body. A camera body without lenses is useless, an expensive camera body with a poor lens is worse if virtually every situation than a cheap camera with a fantastic lens. You also need to consider backup cameras and lenses, you can't shoot a wedding with just one camera and one lens, so that is a big budget concern as well.

[d1ver]

Thank you very much, EarthQuake. Wow you`re fast man.:)

Yeah I guess we've got to make some compromises. Or I just have to buy something and let her work from there :)

Anyway, much appreciated, buddy.
Now some more photography education time :)

[EarthQuake]

NP! If you want some more specific advice, give me an idea of her skill level/experience, and the sort of requirements she has out of a camera. Even some of her favorite shots too, to get an idea of the style she's after and the sort of lenses she might need.

[Renaud Galand]

Hey guys,

so I've been playing with my new DSLR for a few months now (Canon 600D/T3i + 50mm f/1.8 II) and I'm loving it so far!

My flickr : http://www.flickr.com/photos/79437694@N06/

Still, I'm such a noob when it comes to equipment...
A couple of frustrations I have been facing, though, are when I want to capture large stuff in small rooms, and the lack of zoom. I'm slowly getting ready to buy a new lens. I've done my "homework" and came up with this lens that seems to be what I'm looking for (a.k.a. a wide angle lens with a small zoom ?)

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Amazon.com: Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

I also considered the Tamron one (for its ridiculously low price) but I REALLY like the IS feature on the Canon version (could be VERY useful to shoot without tripod in low light or simply shooting movies).

I'm looking for thoughts and potentially people who have been using that specific lens.

(Sorry if this lens has already been mentioned in this thread, I haven't had a chance to go through the whole thing)

[EarthQuake]

I picked up the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 used for about $300 on eBay. though I've got a Sony Alpha so in body IS. Great lens and small/light weight which means I almost always have it with me. I actually bought it for my wife more than anything, as she doesn't like primes, but I use it a lot more than I thought I would.

If you need something with IS you might consider the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS for $620 currently: http://www.adorama.com/SG1750EOS.html

I would have a very hard time paying over a grand for a fast standard zoom.

One thing to remember about IS: It will only help with camera shake, you will still need to raise your shutter speed when shooting in low light with moving objects(ie: your friends at a bar). So IS may give you 3 or so stops with static subjects, it doesn't do anything for movement, you're still going to need to crank the ISO in those cases. So depending on what you need the lens for, IS/OS may not make much of a real difference*.

* Though I love having it with all of my lenses, even primes, on my Alpha. =P

On the other hand, IS can be cool for things like purposeful motion blur of a subway train going by with a slow shutter speed and no tripod, a very hard shot to take without IS or some sort of stabilization.

[Ex-Ray]

I also have the tamron 17-50 non VC version and it's really great for the price, sure the canon one is marginally better but I couldn't justified the price considering it's an EF-S. In my mind if I'm spending that much I would rather get an L lens.

If 'IS' is important then there is the tamron 17-50 VC version for similar price and I think it also give about 3 stops as well.

[Prophecies]

Also, D1ver, you might want to keep into consideration the crop factor benefits.
While Full-Frame bodies have their own set of advantages, so do APS-C (crop sensor) bodies.

Crop-sensors will give you a better pixel density than its full-frame counterparts.
Say you have a 24MP full-frame sensor, and a 24MP Crop-sensor, the reach you can achieve with your lenses will be greater on the crop-sensor. There is not a single full-frame body out there that can achieve the same pixel density as a good APS-C.
Essentially, you multiply the focal length of your lense by 1.5x (This if for Nikon, Canon has a 1.6x crop factor I think). So, say you have a 50mm lense, on an APS-C body, it is the equivalent of 75mm. 300mm becomes 450mm, and so on.

Now, you said your girlfriend mostly wants to shoot events, in which case full-frame would be the better choice. But you need to remember that FF bodies and lenses are significantly more expensive than APS-C.

If you're interested in shooting wildlife, the advantages of APS-C really shine.

[EarthQuake]

Ah yeah, the 17-50mm VC, I would go with that if IS is important. http://www.adorama.com/TM1750VEOS.html $550 with rebate right now.

[EarthQuake]

Also, D1ver, you might want to keep into consideration the crop factor benefits.
While Full-Frame bodies have their own set of advantages, so do APS-C (crop sensor) bodies.

Crop-sensors will give you a better pixel density than its full-frame counterparts.
Say you have a 24MP full-frame sensor, and a 24MP Crop-sensor, the reach you can achieve with your lenses will be greater on the crop-sensor. There is not a single full-frame body out there that can achieve the same pixel density as a good APS-C.
Essentially, you multiply the focal length of your lense by 1.5x (This if for Nikon, Canon has a 1.6x crop factor I think). So, say you have a 50mm lense, on an APS-C body, it is the equivalent of 75mm. 300mm becomes 450mm, and so on.

Now, you said your girlfriend mostly wants to shoot events, in which case full-frame would be the better choice. But you need to remember that FF bodies and lenses are significantly more expensive than APS-C.

If you're interested in shooting wildlife, the advantages of APS-C really shine.

Yeah honestly for weddings I wouldn't suggest APS-C, ff is going to give the DOF control and high ISO noise advantage that a wedding photographer is going to want/need.

That said I have shot a couple weddings with APS-C gear, not professionally mind you but its totally doable.

A decent APS-C with a 50mm/1.4 gets you very far. I've done some professional-ish portraits for some friends recently and had very good results with this combo(and a few more lenses but this was mainly what was used). A FF + 85/1.4/1.2 would be better of course.

As far as crop factor/lens price goes, yeah APS-C gives you more reach(the generally FF have high MP so you can get some of it back by cropping - D800 esp), yeah some of the equivalent lenses are cheaper(like 50/1.4 vs 85/1.2/1.4, though the EF 85/1.8 is very good) but then you're more limited with fast wides. To get the same results as a 35/1.4 on FF you would need a 24/1.0 lens which nobody makes. A 24/1.4 on FF is equiv to 16/1.0 and there's really nothing anywhere near that on APS-C. So if you're after subject isolation with wides FF is your only option.

[Prophecies]

I completely agree when it comes to wide-angle lenses (especially fast primes), APS-C gets the short end of the stick.
Since I tend to always shoot at the longer end of focal lengths (50-300mm range), APS-C is my sensor of choice. I carry one Ultra-wide angle lense (11-16mm F/2.8 ) for my wide angle needs. Fortunately, all my lenses work on FF as well, so if ever I decide to migrate to full-frame, my lenses won't be useless.

It really all depends on what kind of photography you're into.

[EarthQuake]

Yeah for the ultra-wides there isn't really much of a difference.

Tamron 11-18mm, 10-24mm,
Sigma 8-16mm, 10-20mm (two versions)
Tokina 11-16mm
+ the first party choices

You can't really get wider than the Sigma 8-16mm with FF(Sigma 12-24mm FF lens is equiv).

[Ark]

I have the Sigma 10-20 in A-Mount, the older one (f4-f5.6) which is sharper than the newer f3.5 one, and was about £100 cheaper at the time I bought it.

The 8-16 was temping, but you can't use filters on it.

[EarthQuake]

I have the Sigma 10-20 in A-Mount, the older one (f4-f5.6) which is sharper than the newer f3.5 one, and was about £100 cheaper at the time I bought it.

The 8-16 was temping, but you can't use filters on it.

Yeah thats the only reason I haven't bough the 8-16mm yet(I have the 11-18mm Tamron). Though I think I will bite the bullet when I buy an A900 and pick up the Sigma 12-24mm too at some point so I have a super super super wide on FF and still a regular UW on APS-C. No filters with that one though either fdgdfgdfgf, but honestly I use filters with my 11-18mm very rarely.

Also: http://www.benjacobsenphoto.com/2010/gear/filters-for-lenses-that-cant-take-filters/

[Hugh]

hey would you guys recommend any of these. Not looking to get into anything serious just random photos from time to time:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=3017&N=4294247087&mnp=0&mxp=100

[EarthQuake]

hey would you guys recommend any of these. Not looking to get into anything serious just random photos from time to time:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=3017&N=4294247087&mnp=0&mxp=100

These are all film cameras, you understand that right? They may seem cheap, but once you add in the cost of film, and processing, you'll be over the cost of a DSLR after a dozen rolls.

If you're specifically after an AF 35mm Film SLR I can recommend a few:
Canon Elan 7(n/e fine too) e = eye focus
Canon Elan II/IIe
Minolta 650si
Minolta 700si

Otherwise, you can pick up a used DSLR in the $300-500 range and get something quite decent these days. Like a used Canon T1i , Canon 40D, Nikon D80, D90, Sony A560/A580, etc.

[Autocon]

What is a decent starting out tripod? Looking for one ideally that is fairly light weight to carry around and has easy to adjust tripod legs. Not looking at anything crazy expensive as it will be my first for my T3i.

[Prophecies]

Anything carbon fiber. Extremely solid, stable, lightweight. The one downside is that they tend to be a bit more expensive. I purchased a carbon fiber Velbon tripod for about $300, and got a ball-head. It might seem like a lot, but I can garantee you will never regret putting extra bucks into a good tripod. It's as important an investment as a new lense.

Back when I first started, I bought a cheap 40$ tripod, and told myself "as long as it holds my camera, that's all that matters, right?". That same day, I realized I'd made a huge mistake, and noticed how flimsy it was within the first 20 shots I'd taken.

You'll appreciate a lightweight tripod when you're traveling too. What's neat about the Velbon tripod I got, was that it came with a weight bag that attaches between the three legs, allowing you to place rocks or other heavy objects, to help weigh the tripod down, and really make it as steady as possible, even during windy days. I'm pretty sure you can make your own, though.

Hope this helped.

[Schultzie]

This is the tripod I have. It's not carbon fiber, but it's still light weight at 4.6 pounds.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/738078-REG/Benro_A2691TB1_A_2691_Travel_Angel_Alum.html

[EarthQuake]

I've got a different idea of light weight. I've got an old bulky manfroto if I want something really sturdy, but if I want something I will actually take with me outdoors/hiking/vacation/etc I take a Slik Spirit Mini II.

http://www.adorama.com/SLSPM2GM.html?gclid=CPGvru3FsbUCFe9aMgod3W8A0w

This thing is tiny, it folds up to about 14" and weights 1.75 pounds. You can easily attach it to the bottom of your camera bag and forget it is there. IMO, anything larger than this and I never actually take it anywhere. I wouldn't feel safe with it and a 3 pound telephoto lens, and I probably wouldn't use it for 30 second exposures either, but casual on the go tripod use its great. It also doesn't extend very high at only 43.3" inches.

There was actually another one similar to this in the $130 range that has similar specs but extended past 50"s, but I don't recall the name of it though.

But really, light weight and inexpensive are super subjective, as someone has already suggested a $300 tripod, and someone else a 5 pound tripod. What do you consider light weight and inexpensive?

[Autocon]

Ah thats exactly what I'm looking for EQ. Something that I can quickly and easily just take around with me for outdoors/vacation/random outings. Light and cheap. I know once I get deeper into things and acquire more lenses I will want to get something more sturdy like the 300 dollar tripods suggested.

But I am still really learning how to use my camera and only have the 18-55 and 55-250 lenses which are not that heavy. Going tow wait to buy more lenses/need a more sturdy tripod until I really know how to use my camera well as just adding new lenses wont make me better at photography.

Thanks for the tips everyone :)

[Andreas]

http://gizmodo.com/5987677/sony-slt+a58-a-beginner-dslr-for-a-beginner-budget?tag=sony

Thoughts on this camera? Seems like a decent deal. Any reason not to go SONY?

[EarthQuake]

http://gizmodo.com/5987677/sony-slt+a58-a-beginner-dslr-for-a-beginner-budget?tag=sony

Thoughts on this camera? Seems like a decent deal. Any reason not to go SONY?

As someone who shoots Sony cameras, the biggest reason not to go Sony is the use electronic viewfinders in all of their recent cameras. I would really suggest getting your hands on the camera and trying the viewfinder with a comparably priced Canon and Nikon as well. I've got an EVF in my OMD and OVFs in my Sony A580 and A900, both have pros/cons, but some EVFs really make me feel nauseous.

Biggest reasons to go Sony are probably image stabilization in the camera body(so all lenses are IS lenses, even primes, yay!) and large stock of vintage Minolta Maxxum lenses that can be purchased cheaply.

What do you plan on doing with the camera?

[Andreas]

Mostly making sex tapes.

http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2011/12/american-psycho.jpg

Nah just typical beginner stuff; people, landscapes, trips, etc. Coming from point and shoots, I would be more inclined to use the screen instead of the viewfinder anyways. Is the included lens worth much cop or will I be better off maybe just trying to find a body?
Always thought I'd go Canon when I finally invested in a DSLR but that camera is a very good deal. If there was a Canon in a very similar price range with specs of equal quality I might consider that.

EDIT: Decent video would be nice though.

[EarthQuake]

The Canon T3i would be the comparably priced Canon body, at $650 with kit lens currently, or $600 body only.
http://www.adorama.com/ICAT3IK.html
http://www.adorama.com/ICAT3I.html

Its not the latest model(T4i) but its very similar.

Oh another reason TO go Sony. Sony's live view focus is miles ahead of all the other camera makers. This is because of the SLT/EVF, Canon's live view af is really horrible(and nikon's and pentax's), so if you plan on using the LCD a lot, Sony is a good choice.

The kit lens is fine for a beginner, I would say get one, as the cost difference is usually less than $100. Its sometimes good to have a zoom, but basically its a mediocre, slow(which means bad for low light) general purpose lens. At worst a kit lens will help you decide what sort of lenses you will want to go with in the future.

A beginner kit of quality lenses for a Sony Alpha would be:
Minolta 50mm 1.7 $80, or Sony 50mm 1.8 $150 new - for portraits and extreme lowlight
Minolta 70-210mm 4.0 "beercan" $150 - used, a great telephoto zoom

Something like the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is a fantastic kit lens replacement, a wonderful general purpose zoom with fast 2.8 aperture which is much better for lowlight, for about $300 used.

For landscapes, an ultra wide angle zoom is really useful, interiors, architecture as well. A used Tamron 11-18mm for about $300 is a bargain.

If you've added it all up, you'll start to see that the real expense is going to be lenses, so depending on your budget, even $600 may be expensive for a body only. You can pick up a Sony A57 for $500 body only right now. http://www.adorama.com/ISOSLTA57.html

Used, you can find one even cheaper. Or a A55 used. I would personally recommend buying a model or two older, or used body only and pick up a Tamron 16-50/2.8 instead of the kit lens. This, way more than the latest model camera body, will actually improve your photos/allow you to take photos in more situations.

As far as video goes, generally the Sony cameras do pretty good video, similar to live view focusing the Sony SLTs offer much better AF in video mode than Canons. Though people will be quick to tell you that "all the pros use manual focus anyway" - its not really that relevant for a beginner.

The Sony A580 is also a very very good model that I personally have, its the last/best model they made before they switched to the electronic viewfinder. Though this model does not do AF in video mode.

So, tell me what features you find attractive on the Sony A58 vs something like the Canon T3i/T4i.

[Andreas]

Would you really recommend going a model or two older though, considering there's bound to be a good few improvements to the body?

From what I've read reviews wise, with the T3i/4i's, you really get what you pay for, but the A58 seems to be surprisingly good for the money?

A lot of what you've said is going over my newbie head but thanks for the advice. I'll definitely look around at the A57's specs/video quality and try to decide. From what I've read of the budget canons, their picture quality leaves a lot to be desired (what's produced by the actual body, in any case. Poor ISO handling etc.)

I'm surprised at the price of even used lenses heh. Are canon lenses cheaper or are they all about the same? I know it all comes down to spending the most amount on lenses anyways. We have pretty good 'cash price' ;) tech markets here in South Korea, and they have floors and floors of camera gear. Maybe there's a bargain to be found there.

[EarthQuake]

Yeah, one or two bodies older, especially in the entry level sector where new bodies are released every year is not a bad idea. Unless you really, really know what you want and know why the newer model is better, I would probably opt to spend a little bit less.

The A58 for instance is actually a downgrade in certain features from the A57, because its actually a product merge of the A37 and A57 lines at a lower price point than the A57. So for instance, the A58 has a worse rear LCD screen(lower resolution, less articulation), lower burst shooting rate, plastic lens mount, etc, though it looks like it will have a better sensor in it.

Canon's sensors may be a little behind Sony's, but not to the point where its going to make a huge, or even noticable difference to a beginner. The fact of the matter is that a 5 year old DSLR, from any manufacturer, is going to be miles above any point and shoot or cell phone or whatever you've been shooting with.

Here is a comparison of the A57, A580 and T3i:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/798|0/%28brand%29/Sony/%28appareil2%29/692|0/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28appareil3%29/685|0/%28brand3%29/Sony

For low light/high iso, the Canon is equivalent to the A57. Though the A57 has better dynamic range. The A580, despite being a 3 or so year old model at this point, is better than both of them however. The A580 has the same sensor as the Nikon D7000, and Pentax K5, which are $1200-ish cameras(or were, both have been replaced now). The reason the A57 is worse than the A580(though they share basically the same sensor) is because of the SLT mirror in the newer Sony cameras, which allows it to have the EVF, and better AF in live view and video mode(the A580 does not have AF in video mode).

Lenses... Lenses are expensive, the ones I listed here are very good value for the money. Good lenses are in the $300-600 range and great lenses in the $500-2000 range. Depending on how serious you're going to get in photography, buying lenses can become a very expensive hobby, and you will likely spend way way more money on lenses than camera bodies. Canon has similar lenses to the ones I listed for similar prices. The lenses I listed are very good value for the money, each are about the cheapest you can get for a decent lens in that class/type of lens.

Now starting off, you certainty don't need to go out and buy 4 lenses, Its good to stick with the kit lens until you have an idea of what you want. My suggestions here are for typical types of shooting that you will want to do that your kit lens won't be great at.