General dSLR advice [Archive]

EarthQuake

01-04-2011, 12:06 PM

I dont have one, but i've done a lot of research into the compact Lumix SLRs. First off you should read: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicGF1/

Now, to answer your questions:
1. The Micro 4/3rs is the lens mount/type of sensor, this is a smaller sensor than both a full frame(very expensive pro SLR cameras), and a APS-C sensor common on most consumer-semi pro SLR cameras. However it is still a much larger sensor than your typical point and shoot compact camera, so image quality is much better, but still not quite as good as a larger slr, but should be suitable for your needs.

Crop factor is important here, using the standard 35mm camera as a base(also full frame digital) most SLR cameras have a 1.5x crop factor, which means a 50mm lens is a 75mm lens on a APS-C camera. On a MFT Lumix, the crop facto is 2x, so the 20mm pancake lens is essnetially a 40mm "normal" lens on a Lumix.

2. The lenses are interchangeable, and there is a small selection of lenses available for the MFT mount, compared to other SLR cameras, there is a much smaller selection, and the lenses are a good deal more expensive. For example, a "normal" 50mm 1.8 Canon EF lens costs $100 new, a wide 28mm(44mm equiv) 2.8 canon lens is about $175, and a 35mm 2.0(56mm equiv) is about $225-250, i'm going by used prices, which for Canon gear there is a very good used market.

Now, a Lumix 20mm 1.7 will set you back about $325-400 new, maybe less if you can get it as a kit with your camera body. Used probably not much less as there simply isnt the same volume as canon, nikon, etc lenses available.

I believe there are about 12 unique lenses for the micro four thirds mount, most of which are more expensive than the 20mm, with the cheap 14-42(28-84 equiv) being the exception which can be had for $140-180 used, but isn't a great lens. Also third party lenses, i'm not sure how many are out there for the MFT mount.

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/lens/g_14.html

If you look at the selection for canon/nikon, you'll find a HUGE selection of lenses, 100+ unique AF lenses for either system, both 1st party and 3rd party lenses. So you've got a huge selection when it comes to glass.

One very cool thing about the MFT mount is that you can get older manual focus lenses for very cheap. Because of the way it is designed, you can buy cheap adaptors($10-20) that are just chunks of metal with no corrective glass(cheap glass in adaptors reduced image quality, but is require to adapt many lenses to cameras). This means you can pick up old Canon FD and Minolta MD lenses that nobody really wants, for dirt cheap. Of course you'll have to learn how to use a manual focus lens, but its an option for getting really cheap quality lenses.

I actually have one question for anyone who has one of these MFT cameras, and that is lens distortion:

Because the MFT system is designed specifically for these lenses, does a 20mm lens have the perspective distortion of a 20mm lens on a 35mm camera(what would be an ultra-wide lens, and terrible for portraits) or does it have the perspective distortion of a 40mm lens?

[edit] Reading a bit more it looks like the 20mm does act like a 40mm, which is good news and means it would be an excellent fast general purpose lens, which I would recommend getting if you buy a GF1. It is a prime lens however, which means it has a fixed focal lenth, no zooming. You have to zoom with your feet! I would probably say for starters you would want:

GF1 body
20mm 1.7 lens
14-42mm lens

So, see how much that is going to cost and if you can stomach it. =)

[edit 2]

Now as far as "worth it" goes, it really depends.
If you want a professional camera system, you'de probably want to go with a Canon/Nikon setup for a similar price

If you want a very compact camera that gives exception image quality for the size, with the flexibility of an SLR system, then its probabbly a good choice, I would look at the Olympus EP1 and other similar Olympus MFT cameras too, they tend to be a little cheaper, but lens selection is just as poor or worse.

If you want a compact high quality camera, and dont want to fuss with changing lenses or aren't worried about getting the absolute BEST image quality, look at the Canon s90 or s95, both of which are extremely good compact cameras that offer some very good features if you're not too concerned about the more advanced aspects of photography. If you just want a nice compact camera, a Lumix/Olympus SLR is likely too expensive for you. The s90/s95 can be found for about half of what you'll spend on a MFT SLR camera.

Tom Ellis

01-04-2011, 01:04 PM

Thanks for the replies guys, much appreciated.

Thanks EQ, I've seen some of your photography posts before, you clearly know your shit so I was kinda hopin' to get a response from you :D

Having read your comments, as well as the review you linked, it seems I'd be rather silly to go for the GF1 over a DSLR, just for the sake of size. I checked one out in the flesh and they're actually a little bigger than I expected; with a lens, they're still gonna need a decent size/protection case anyway.

I wasn't aware of the cost of lenses too so that's a big deal. As I said, I don't intend to get all photographer on this, but who knows, I may end up loving it and ending up with a small selection of expensive lenses isn't somewhere I'd wanna end up.

With regards to manual focus, I'm no pro but I once borrowed my Grandad's old Canon T70 film camera, and obviously that had no AF on it so I have had a bit of practice, it's actually kinda fun being able to focus yourself, and having the control is actually quite attractive over straight up AF (although I'm guessing the GF has a manual option?)

So in a complete turnaround, which DSLR's should I look at? Preferably around the same price as the GF, I was gonna grab a new GF, but if it's worth looking for a used DSLR to get more bang for my buck then I'm happy to do that too.

Thanks again for the help guys.

EarthQuake

01-04-2011, 03:41 PM

No problem, I'm a camera nerd so its fun to write about this stuff.

Yeah that is one thing with these MTF cameras, they're compact, but not small enough to throw in a pocket and take with you everywhere. The times you wouldn't take a "real" slr with you, you probably wouldnt take a 4/3rds Lumix with you either, as you've still gotta bring some sort of camera bag/case.In addition to that, they're just small enough not to be very comfortable or get a nice grip, I would imagine atleast, like a full sized canon.

So, I'm a Canon guy, and I've nothing against Nikon or Pentax(or sony to a lesser extent) so I wont really talk much about the other big vendors other than to say they're all good, they all make good cameras and all have a good selection of lenses. Nikon and Pentax have had the same lens mount since forever, which means you can find older manual focus lenses to use without adaptors. Sony is a newcomer but supports older Minolta Maxxum autofocus lenses, which can be had at a bargain. Minolta and Canon both completely scrapped their mount when they came out with Auto Focus lenses, which made a lot of people angry, but at the same time let them design new lenses specifically for modern cameras, Canon EF lenses are excellent IMO, and there is a huge variety from the cheap stuff to the super pro stuff to choose from.

So, the first thing you need to know is this: The only thing that matters is your lenses. Forget megapixels, forget continuous shooting, all the features in the world won't help to make a better picture if your lens sucks. I tend to shoot with prime lenses only, as they are fast(good for low light and depth of field effects) and they are very sharp. Zooms are slow, and soft, but more convenient, you'll probably want a "kit zoom" to start off with to experiment and figure out what focal ranges you like to use, and then buy primes that fit those ranges, thats what I do at-least.

Ok, so now that we know *lenses* are really the important part, there are basically 3 very important things to consider with your camera body:
1. Ergonomics, the lowest end Canon bodies aren't quite as comfortable, and the controls aren't as good as the mid-range bodies, this is something that may or may not be an issue. I've got an old 350D and pine for a little nicer, more comfortable body.
2. Live view, older dSLRs only have support for the optical viewfinder, which means no taking pictures by looking at the lcd screen, you will do all the "work" looking down the viewfinder, which isn't a bad thing by any means, but is not as convenient for taking shots at weird angles and such.
3. Video, the recent Canon bodies in the last couple years support HD video, 720p or 1080p.

So, now we have some options, I'm going to mention mostly used prices, as it isn't a bad idea to buy a used dSLR(and some older ones will be near impossible to find new)

Canon 20D. This is an older body, 6-7 years old, 8MP, no video, no live view, but it is a very comfortable camera with good controls and you can find it for CHEAP. You can get a 20D body for $200-250.

Canon 40D. A little newer, 10MP(i've skipped the 30D as it really offers nothing over the 20D but higher cost), this offers the same good ergonomics of the 20D, but also adds live view, and can be found in the $400-600 range.

more..............

Thats all for now, I've gotta head out and pick up the wife from work, i'll have to finish this up later tonight.

EarthQuake

01-04-2011, 06:57 PM

Ok, back to it.

Canon 500D(T1i), this is the bottom of the line camera that has live view and video. Its a 15MP camera and it does 720p video, which is plenty for just messing about with video, sure you wont be making your own full length films with this camera, but its a nice feature to have.

Technically the XXXD line is a step below the XXD line, but this is most apparent in ergonomics and controls, and not necessarily features, for instance the sensor is the same size in either camera, so you're not going to see much difference in a comparable XXD to XXXD body when you look at noise performance or general image quality. So what you lose out on here most of all is simply the feel of the camera. Not to say this camera feels terrible, I think there have been some improvements here over my 350D, controls are a bit better and feels a little nicer as well, but a XXD body is a bit bigger and more comfortable.

As far as controls go, the biggest difference between a XXD and a XXXD is that the XXD body has 2 control wheels, and that means in Manual mode you can easily adjust shutter speed and aperture with the two different wheels, on a XXXD body you have to hold down another button to adjust aperture. This may be a very minor thing to some people, and a terrible thing to others, I suggest finding a 500D(many retail outlets like best buy, office depot, etc should have one or a 450D or 550D).

Used this should run you $425-475, possibly with a kit lens included in that price as well, I'm seeing some new ones(body only) sell for $475-520ish, so this is comparable or a little cheaper than a used 40D, you sacrifice some comfort stuff for better features essentially.

Canon 550D, the biggest difference here is that it boasts the same sensor as the 7D(a $1800 camera) and offers more video options, 1080p at 30 FPS and 720P at 60 FPS(so you can do slow-mo stuff) this just came out in 2010 tho, so prices are a little higher than the 550D but not terrible, $625-675 new(body only), and not much less used, its very new and there arent a lot out on the used market yet.

Canon 50D, 15 megapixels, this is pretty much a 40D with video, from what I know. I believe the 500D may use the same sensor as this camera as well. Used $625-725, new 700-800 or so, again this one is a newer camera, so used/new prices wont vary a huge amount.

Ok so no that we have and idea of prices, and what the big differences in the main features, you can see that if you're willing to tough it out with a 20D, you can afford some much better lenses, and of course take better pictures in more situations. More expensive lenses are generally faster and sharper(be it zoom or primes, however primes are intrinsically sharp, almost without exception, "sharp enough" at least).

So my advice would be, get:

20D body $225
Wide/General purpose lens: Canon 28mm 2.8 $175 or Canon 35mm 2.0 $225(28mm is a bit wider, 35mm is a bit faster, both are good value lenses)
Normal/Portrait lens: Canon 50mm 1.8 $100

Tele lens:Canon 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0, very similar lenses each in the $325-350 range, one a little longer, the other a little faster, either would make an excellent moderate telephoto

Alternatively, general purpose zoom instead of the Tele: Canon EF 28-105mm 3.5-4.5, this is a great little zoom that is a little faster than most similar zooms and covers a nice range, you could skip the wide lens as well until you've figured out how you really like to use your camera with this lens, $100-150 used.

So that kit there, will run you about $450 with just the bare min(body, 50mm, zoom) or full system at $825, which isn't much more than you would have spent on a Lumix + 1 extra lens. I would probably say go with the body, 50mm, and a zoom, and work your way towards the other lenses listed if needed. Remember, if you build a system of quality lenses, you can easily just upgrade your body at any time, if you feel the need.

The biggest thing to remember is that a nicer or more expensive camera body doesn't = better pictures. It works like this:

1. Seeing/Understanding photography
2. Lenses
3. Body

Unless of course, Video or Live View are features you *MUST HAVE*.

Now beyond all of this, there are a lot of smaller points to consider like high ISO performance, but honestly you'll get the best low light performance out of using fast lenses, not because your camera body can do ISO 12800. But feel free to ask if you have any questions about more in-depth stuff like that.

Entity

01-04-2011, 10:07 PM

Very good points from EQ, and given the choice between an old XXD canon camera and the entry level ones I'd pick the former. They just feel so much nicer in your hands, and the shutter lag is so much better.

You could also go the crazy route and shoot film, which is what I do. Film cameras are dirt cheap right now, even the leicas I shoot with.

EarthQuake

01-04-2011, 10:37 PM

"Leica" and "dirt cheap" should never reside in the same sentence, even damaged Leica's are worth hundreds =P. Now Olympus OM gear is dirt cheap, get an OM-10 with a lens for like $25, an OM-2 with a lens for $50.

Film cameras are cheap but film itself is expensive and time consuming, although it is fun, and a totally different mentality than shooting digital. The long term cost of film vs a digital body means digital is cheaper, unless you're developing yourself, then I imagine it less of a burden.

Entity

01-04-2011, 10:48 PM

Yeah diy development is the only way to go for film these days. Processing labs are a hit and miss (with more and more misses lately) when it comes to developing c41 film..which is a shame really cause I really love the colors and tonality you get with them. I recently scanned in some old film developed in the 90's and I was blown away by how good it looks, especially compared to the ones developed recently.

haiddasalami

01-05-2011, 03:51 AM

Woah that writeup saved me the time of asking EQ about cameras haha. I enjoyed photography in college where we used SLR's and developed the film. So awesome but got annoying making shitty prints :(

ChrisG

01-05-2011, 04:38 AM

Would like to chip in and say DIY c-41 is inexpensive and brilliant fun (plus dead quick, once a roll of film is finsihed it could be developed in abotu 15 minutes), I use tetenal.
(http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/products/616/tetenal-colortec-c-41-rapid-negative-kit-1-litre)
1 ltr, for £15 and I have done around 18 rolls with it (can go up to 40 I hear, with deving time of about 30 minutes plus), your much more invovled that a digital and yes it takes alittle longer but its an enterily different experience.
I have a very cheap epson 2400 photo which does the job fine or scanning negs. Dont buy crappy single negative scanners, get one that has a flatbed and a neg scanner.

Also I mainly shoot my om-1 and as EQ said its dirt cheap I picked up my 50mm 1.8 for £9.50, most lens are lower than £50. The thing I love about the film world is the amount of cameras and lens there are, each with a quirk of their own.

Saying that I am looking into dslrs, mainly the canon 20d/30d.

Happy snapping!
Chris

thomasp

01-05-2011, 05:26 AM

Xoliul

01-05-2011, 06:34 AM

So the past year I've go on holiday twice with my Panasonic Lumix FZ27 and I run into its limitations every time. Now I'm thinking about getting a serious camera with my new years bonus.

I'm thinking about getting a slightly older second hand high-end one on eBay as opposed to buying a new entry level one. Looking to spend around 4-500 euro's at most (I guess you can convert that to the same amount of dollars). Something along the lines of a Canon Eos 30D / 40D or a Nikon D200.

Would this be a good idea, or would it be better to get a lower-end, new one?
Any advice is welcome.

edit; hmm I see EQ posted a lot of stuff in C21's topic also, i guess these could be merged then. Sorry, didn't see that when i posted this :/

Tom Ellis

01-05-2011, 08:37 AM

hmm I see EQ posted a lot of stuff in C21's topic also

C-Twenty-Who?

:D

Tom Ellis

01-05-2011, 08:49 AM

EarthQuake

01-05-2011, 09:02 AM

not sure how much of a concern dimensions and weight of the camera are? some DSLRs are huge and heavy beasts. more so with fancy lenses attached. you do have to be a proper camera nerd to be willing to lift those around on more than your first trip.

also - live view. if you take the occasional quick snap and like how a digital compact works sooner rather than later you will want live view really.

Yeah for me its like, i'm either carrying an SLR or i'm not, so getting a little bigger one like the 20D isnt a big issue. However the smaller size and robust features and decent price of the 500D is very attractive, esp for someone's first SLR.

EarthQuake

01-05-2011, 09:47 AM

Thanks guys, really appreciate the amount of info you're taking the time to provide.

Firstly, with regards to live view and film cameras;

I understand the 'charm' of developing ones own film, but I'm really not into it. As I said, I'm no photographer and probably won't become one, so messing around in darkrooms and ruining rolls of film isn't my kinda thing. Also, don't you need enlargers and paper and all that stuff? Surely scanning negs and printing them that way takes half the charm away?!

Live view, I see your points about it being useful for tricky angles, but I'm quite happy using the viewfinder. In most cases with previous compacts I've had, or if I ever pick up a SLR, I naturally want to use the viewfinder, using the screen to aim a picture always feels a bit wrong to me. With this in mind, I'm not sure why I even considered the GF1 since it's lacking a viewfinder altogether.

Ok so I've looked into my options. I think I'm gonna grab a lower end body and a few lenses rather than a higher end body and one lens.

I've looked on eBay, and the 20D seems to go for around £200. Also, the 350D goes for about the same. Are they a similar camera?

One other interesting point is that my Brother has a 350D which I rarely see him use. While it's a little beat up (he uses it for what I'd probably call 'guerrilla photography', skateboarding, grafitti etc), I think only the casing has seen a few knocks, it seems to work just fine, and the lenses all look very tidy.

If he's willing to part with it, or if I can find one on eBay, is this a good camera to go for?

A couple other questions.

Firstly, I've seen a lot of the cameras on eBay have a 28-80 rather than the 28-105 you suggested EQ. Does that just mean the zoom range is slightly less? Still a good lens choice?

And finally, excuse my ignorance but what do you mean when you say a lens is 'fast'.

Thanks again for all the help.

I have a 350D and all the shots you see me post in the photo thread are on my 350D. The 350D has the exact same sensor as the 20D, but the 20D has a better feel, better controls(the two wheel system), a faster max shutter speed 1/8000th compared to 1/4000th than, higher ISO setting 3200 compared to 1600(you can fake it on a 350D tho by underexposing and then correcting it in RAW). Both cameras have the same sensor so image quality is basically the same. The viewfindering is nicer on the 20D, and the shutter is quieter, and feels nicer and faster. I've used both, a 20D I found for Pedro(bitmap) and really preferred the 20D.

HOWEVER if you can pick up a 350D for cheaaaaaap or even just borrow your brother's for a while as you build up your lenses, it would be a very good option, and then upgrade to something a little better if/when you need it. Also, my 350D is beat to hell and has some issues with the LEDs and other stuff, but it really doesn't affect my ability to take photos.

About viewfinder/live view, yeah when you look at the compact market these days, its almost impossible to go to a store and buy a camera other than a dSLR that even has a viewfinder. Its a shame, however live view is nice like I said for shooting at odd angles or a little more carefree shooting.

LENS SPEED:

Alright, so what you need to know about lens speed is this:
1. The lens "aperture" defines how fast a lens is, this is the F:1.8 or F3-.5-4.5 number on the lens smaller numbers are better
2. A smaller F number = a larger aperture, and what this refers to is basically how large the hole in the lens is and how much light it lets in.
3. The more light a camera lets in, the faster your shutter speed can be, which allows you to take pictures in less light without the use of a flash or a tripod, and these are definitely good things, the build in flash on your camera is an awful thing, you never want your light source coming directly from where your camera is, it flattens out your subject and ruins the form.
4. Aperture's get very confusing, but you'll figure it out eventually, here is a basic aperture chart:

1.0
1.4
2.0
2.8
4
5.6
8
11
16
22
32

Each larger number here means that the lens picks up exactly half the amount of light as the smaller number above it, this means that if you need to use a shutter speed of 1/100 at 2.0, you will need to use 1/50 at 2.8, 1/25 at 4 and 1/12 at 5.6. 1/100th is suitable for taking a reasonably sharp image hand-holding your camera, where 1/12 you will likely need some sort of support like a tripod or a monopod, and for your subject to stay perfectly still. So you see why a zoom with a 4-5.6 aperture is a "slow" lens, and a 50mm 1.8 is a "fast" lens.

5. Zooms tend to have variable apertures, a 28-80mm 4-5.6 lens means that at 28mm the aperture is 4.0 and at 80mm the aperture is 5.6, and inbetween its, somewhere inbetween =)

6. With most zooms, they are going to be soft "wide open", wide open refers to a lens set to its max aperture. To get a sharper result with a "soft" lens you will need to "stop it down" (a full stop refers to halfing your aperture, going from 4.0 to 5.6 for example, to get the best sharpness on a cheap zoom you will want to stop down 1-2 stops, so at the 80mm range on a cheap 28-80mm lens, you may end up shooting at F8 or F11 just to get a sharp shot.

Prime lenses tend to be "sharp enough" wide open and the 50mm 1.8 for example is decently sharp at 1.8 and at 2.8 is razor sharp, you can get away with "shooting wide open" on a prime more-so than a cheaper zoom. Sharpness is of course relative to your tastes, to the desired size/resolution of your image and may be helped in photoshop. A "soft" image at 15MP may be fine printed at 6x4 or at a reasonable web resolution.

7. Depth of field, how narrow or how wide and by "narrow" i mean the focal plane itself is very narrow, the area in which is "in focus" is small and the area out of focus gets very blurry quickly with a narrow DOF, with a wide DOF what is in focus extends much further. How narrow or wide your DOF is has to do with two things:

A. How fast your lens is, a slower less will give a wider DOF, which means its harder to get nice blurry out of focus DOF on a slow lens, which is nice for "macro" type shots, taking portraits where you can isolate the subject and blur the background to call more attention to the subject itself, and other creative uses. However a fast lens can be "stopped down" to get the same "wide" DOF as a slow lens, so you *always* want a faster lens, in general terms.

B. How close you are to your subject, and how close the subject is to the background/foreground. The close you are to your subject the more narrow the DOF will be, and the farther away the fore/background is from your subject the more it will be out of focus.

8. WHY ARE ZOOMS SLOW?

Well, a zoom lens is much more complicated mechanically, many more moving parts have to be jammed into a smaller space, leaving less room for nice big glass that lets your light through. People spend thousands to get Zooms that are both fast and sharp, like the various Canon L series zooms.

On the contrary, because primes are a fixed focal range, the only part of the lens that moves is the focusing element, primes are much simpler mechanically so they can let in more light, and need less corrective glass to account for various zoom ranges, so they are sharper.

Now, that should be a good starter on apertures and lens speed, I recommend you read this page: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm and browse that sight in general for lots of good information.

Now to the 28-80mm specifically, if its the II or III version, this is the absolute cheapest, crappiest lens you can buy! =D I have a few of them sitting here(I sell used camera stuff on ebay) if you just want something super cheap its fine, but there really isn't anything about this lens that would make you want to buy it, its slow and has a pretty limited zoom range.

This version of the 28-80mm is a hair faster and has better build quality, but still not really worth owning:

http://cgi.ebay.com/CANON-EF-28-80mm-f3-5-5-6-USM-ORIGINAL-EOS-50D-XTi-USED-/300509595525?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item45f7c48785

This is the specific version of the 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 lens I would suggest, its a little faster than most similar zooms, and covers a decent range, but ONLY this version, the other versions are worse, the newest being a 4.5-5.6 version. It has a very specific look so be warned of any that look different.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EF-28-105mm-f-3-5-4-5-II-USM-Lens-/180608509424?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2a0d1b25f0

In general, a zoom lens like this is going to be best when:
A. When you have a lot of light, out on a sunny day etc
B. When you want to travel light and just bring one lens
C. When you're still just figuring out what focal ranges you like to use.

I think thats it for now, going to re-read your post and see if i missed anything.

[edit] I also suggest you buy/pick up from the library this book: http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-Photographs-Digital-Updated/dp/0817463003

I got it from the library on Ben's(poopinurmouth) suggestion, read it while I was waiting for my 350D to arrive and had a very good understanding of technical aspects of photography after just a few nights reading. I know you keep saying you dont plan on be "into photography" but I think when you get an SLR and start playing with lenses and everything and understand how it all works, it will sort of "click" and you will really enjoy it.

Like drawing, painting, sculpting, photography is a very good skill to learn for an artist.

EarthQuake

01-05-2011, 10:05 AM

One more thing to add on lens speed is this:

When someone refers to "poor light" or says that "a slow zoom is bad for poor light" often times poor light refers to anything but decent, natural outdoor light. Indoor lighting is almost always poor light, unless you have a lot of natural light at the right time of day, bars and other places are *always* poor light. My living room for example, stresses the speed of my 30mm 1.4 lens. Some people think a poor light means being in a dark closet or a cave or something, in reality, anything other than being outside with a reasonable amount of natural light, or inside with studio lighting is "poor light".

Newer bodys can handle higher ISO speeds, which means the sensor is more sensitive to light. ISO 400 is twice as fast as ISO 200 for instance, however the higher your ISO gets, the more noise you're going to have, which becomes and issue at really high ISOs. Real expensive cameras tend to handle noise in ISO very well, I'm not sure how much better a 40D or a 50D handles noise than a 20D, but its likely a noticeable bit better. Cameras with higher MP also tend to have more noise as well, so its a bit of a balancing act there for camera manufacturers.

[Edit]

I'll mention image stabilization here too. Some lenses can correct for slight movements in the camera and produce sharper results, this is refereed to as IS and with canon lenses, you need to buy specific IS lenses. It is said an IS lens can produce a 2 stop difference, IE: an image as sharp as if it was shot with a lens 2 stops faster. HOWEVER, these lenses are generally 2-3 stops SLOWER than a prime lens, and IS does nothing to help give better DOF. IS will also not help if your *subject* is moving, only a faster shutter speed and of course a faster lens will help that.

So an IS zoom is better than a standard zoom, generally, of the same type, but still wont compare with a prime. IS also can be very important with really long telephoto zooms, like 75-300mm zooms, as the "longer" the focal length, the harder it is to get a steady shot.

Tom Ellis

01-05-2011, 10:10 AM

Fantastic stuff EQ thanks a bunch.

I was about to say is there a good book I should look out for, so I'll grab that one asap and get into it.

Ok so I'll start bargain hunting then! I'll have a word with my Bro and see whether he wants to sell his 350D, alternatively, I'll keep an eye out for a 20 as it does sound like the better option.

Thanks again man, such great info!

EarthQuake

01-05-2011, 10:15 AM

No problem, if you can find a 350D for half the cost of a 20D, its a bargain, if its only $20 less, its not worth it. Since your brother has a 350D you should try it out, see how you feel about the weight and size, as the 350D is a pretty good representation of the 500D, 550D etc as far as the size and weight goes, and the 20, 40, 50D etc being a bit larger and heavier. I actually like a bit more weight, too light and I dont feel I have as steady a grip, my 30mm 1.4 is about 3-4x heavier than my 50mm 1.8(which weights nothing! you'll forget its on the camera its so light), and is actually *very comfortable* to use.

EarthQuake

01-05-2011, 10:18 AM

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS350D/Images/sidebyside02.jpg

20D, 350D, some olympus SLR. To give an idea of the size difference.

I liked the idea of the smaller 350D when I purchased mine, but you quickly realize you're going to be the weirdo camera nerd no matter what carrying a camera this size.

Tom Ellis

01-05-2011, 10:30 AM

Ok great stuff, I'll have a little hands on with the 350 and see what I think but I know what you mean, something with a bit more to hold on to might be useful.

One more thing!

I notice a lot of the DSLR's use CF cards, is that still the case?

Obviously being a compact only guy up til now, I've always had SD cards and have a fair few lying around. Do any newer DSLR's use SD or are they still on compact flash? I could Google but I figured if there's a reason they are using CF, then you'd be able to explain why!

EarthQuake

01-05-2011, 10:43 AM

The 350D and 20D use CF, newer ones use SD I think, some of the newer higher end may still use CF but i'm not sure, i think the newer Rebels XXXDs use SD. If you find a used 20D, chances are it will come with a CF card or three =)

thomasp

01-05-2011, 12:07 PM

my pentax uses SD, too. there seems to be an issue with CF cards potentially damaging the pins in the camera if you're not careful, making for a rather expensive repair. certainly happened to some canon owners i know.

anyway, size comparisons are fun. lumix vs some canon SLR: http://dpinterface.com/media/2009/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-vs-slr.jpg
canon entry level vs. 5D: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Dslr_sensor_comparison.jpg

and this is my standard config (someone else's image tho): http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/170/340/pentax1_28.jpg
apparently fat-fingered people disapprove of the focus ring but i've not had any problems. ;)

EarthQuake

01-05-2011, 12:52 PM

Yeah unfortunately there arent any pancake lenses for the EF system, oh well the 50mm 1.8 is super light and pretty small anyway. Its not like I could fit my 350D in my pocket if only I had a pancake lens. =D

I've kept an eye on some of the older pentax MF 40mm pancake lenses to adapt to canon but they sell for $100-200 which is just too much for a redundant MF lens.

Eeeek I see that DA versions costs as much as my Sigma 30mm 1.4 too! Gotta pay for small I guess, I'de rather pay for fast =P

Entity

01-05-2011, 12:53 PM

I'd like to point out that a DSLR (pretty much any model that's not from the pro lines) paired with a small prime really isn't that bulky. I usually switch between a D700 and a pair of rangefinder's and the size different is rarely noticeable.

EarthQuake

01-05-2011, 01:07 PM

Yeah, a XXXD or XXD with a 28,35,50,85 or 100mm prime isn't tooo bad size wise.

Now if we start talking L lenses, then yeah, heuge

thomasp

01-05-2011, 01:15 PM

Eeeek I see that DA versions costs as much as my Sigma 30mm 1.4 too! Gotta pay for small I guess, I'de rather pay for fast =P

indeed these days they are costly. they've jacked up the prices significantly about a year ago, luckily i bought my kit before that.
the problem with the fast lenses on the pentax end is that there are hardly any current models (with AF). i was eyeing a zeiss lens at one point but thankfully my nerd-spree ended before i made a purchase. :)

EarthQuake

01-05-2011, 01:25 PM

Yeah I was just taking a look on pentax's site and the lens selection looked pretty weak, with canon you've got:

14mm 2.8
15mm 2.8
20mm 2.8
24mm 1.4
24mm 2.8
28mm 1.8
28mm 2.8
35mm 1.4
35mm 2.0
50mm 1.0 (if you can find one, early EF series)
50mm 1.2
50mm 1.4
50mm 1.8
50mm 2.5 Macro
85mm 1.2
85mm 1.8
100mm 2.0
100mm 2.8 Macro
135mm 2.0
135mm 2.8
200mm 2.0
200mm 2.8
300mm 2.8

All at 2.8 or faster. I got a huge boner compiling this list btw.

This more than anything is why i'll likely be sticking with canon for a very long time, I think this is by far the best prime lineup out of any of the top 3, Canon/Nikon/Pentax, which is a shame because Pentax's recent bodies look very attractive.

Fomori

01-05-2011, 02:36 PM

I kind of went a similar route and got a cheap Nikon D100 off Ebay along with a 50mm prime lens. I'm really happy with it to be honest and don't need more megapixels as I'm not planning on printing posters. It feels much more professional in my hands than a new low end DSLR.

With 500 euros you could probably do similar and also get a nice cheap "kit lens" as well for the wide angle shots and the zoom. I can't see you getting more for your money anywhere else. Major thing to keep in mind is that the body isn't as important as the lens, so if you're throwing money at it, best place to put it is there. But an essential is a Canon or Nikon 50mm prime lens as they can be had used for about 150 euros and can produce stunning shots.

EarthQuake

01-05-2011, 03:25 PM

Merged threads, and seconding Fomori's advice, a 50mm 1.8 or equiv should be the basis for any dSLR system!

Because of the low cost, extremely high image quality and versatility of a fast 1.8 aperture, its the perfect starter lens.

disanski

01-05-2011, 05:49 PM

I did not read everything so far but I would second Fomori advise- the body is really not so important and if you are spending money on something it better be the lens. Also the price of the lens if you get them second hand will not drop as fast as the price of the camera body. I got the d90 and the 50 mm f1.8 and i love it so much.

Xoliul

01-06-2011, 03:25 AM

Alright, good thing reading about lenses being more important and that I should put the money there.

I'm looking at bodies, and getting them from a local ad site seems easier, I see 20D's for 200 euro's at half an hour drive from my place, 30D's are 300 euro's. I'm thinking I might go for a 20D then, as the differences between the 20 and 30 are not that important to me yet and there's more money to put in a lens.
For lenses I do notice a 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 is the most common type sold, not 50mm f/1.8 ? I don't understand much of lenses yet, so could anyone explain the difference a bit to me? I'm guessing the first one is not fixed and that most people prefer a lens with some zoom for their first ?

I also see a few lens sets with 28mm, 50mm, 135mm lenses for cheap prices like 135 euros, from brands as Yashica or Chinon. They come with EF adapters. Would something like this be best avoided ?

edit: more questions: 50mm f/1.8 mkII or 50mm f/1.4 ? They're often compared, the 1.4 is much more expensive new but seems to be slightly better?

Ex-Ray

01-06-2011, 06:34 AM

The 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 is a common lens in bundles which is prob why you see it more sold/2nd hand market. It's a zoom lens and the 50mm f1.8 is a prime fixed focal lens. The bundled zoom lens and the cheap 50mm f1.8 mk2 are good lenses to start off with. The zoom lens that covers mostly your everyday walk about needs and then the 50mm for indoor low light and portrait shots.

The more you get into it the more you start investing in lenses.

I recently got the 50mm f1.4 USM on my 20D and I love it, took a bit of time to find it's limits but it was worth the extra cash (I mostly shoot in f2 with it). It's has the ultra sonic motor which make the autofocus mechanism quieter, has better build quality & smoother bokeh.

Most lenses has a 'sweet spot' for good IQ, I use these 2 sites for info on that:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos

User comments and reviews
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

Entity

01-06-2011, 09:01 AM

The 50/1.8 is a good lens, although mine did fall apart after a year. However, it might be too long if it's going to be your only lens, because attaching it to a 20d would turn it an 80mm lens.

Oh yeah, forget canon's 50/1.4 if you want a really good 1.4 lens. Check out Sigma's version, much sharper and the bokeh is creamy :)

EarthQuake

01-06-2011, 09:13 AM

Yes the 18-55mm is a good lens to have in general because:
A. Its dirt cheap, you can find one for $50 or often they come with a camera body
B. Because of the crop factor of a APS-C camera, the 18-55mm is actually a 28-88 equiv lens(on canon 1.6 crop). SO, a 28mm lens which was considered a pretty good wide angle range on 35mm, ends up giving you the crop of more of a normal lens range 45mm.

For how cheap it is, it makes an ok 18mm 3.5 lens, I dont use this lens for anything else, all other ranges I have much better lenses, but a $50 18mm 3.5 lens(if we think of it this way) is a bargain compared to the 20mm 2.8 for $2-400, which is certainly a better lens, and if you do a LOT of wider landscape type or tight indoor photography would be the recommendation. I find myself rarely needing anything wider than my 30mm, so I haven't gotten anything better yet. Cosina/Tamron/Tokina(I beleive this is the same lens optically just re-branded for different markets) offer a 19-35mm 3.5-45 that sells for about $100 and may be a bit better, and Sigma offers a 15-30mm designed for digital crop, but thats more in the $2-300 range, supposedly pretty good tho if you need those wider angles.

My kit looks like this atm:
18mm 3.5 (18-55mm kit)
30mm 1.4
50mm 1.8
80-200mm 4.5-5.6 super light cheapo tele

Now, if we look at the 55mm end of the kit, this is just an absolutely useless lens, a 55mm 5.6 lens, slow and nowhere near as sharp as the 50mm 1.8. The big reason *everyone* should have a 50mm is because it is cheap as hell, arguably the sharpest lens money can buy(the 1.4 and 1.2 may be slightly sharper but at 3.5x and 10x more expensive who is keeping track) and the 1.8 speed makes it ideal for low light. Even if all of your other lenses are zooms, even high quality L series zooms, you should still have a "nifty fifty" as even the best zoom is only 2.8 at the fastest.

EarthQuake

01-06-2011, 09:21 AM

I recently got the 50mm f1.4 USM on my 20D and I love it, took a bit of time to find it's limits but it was worth the extra cash (I mostly shoot in f2 with it). It's has the ultra sonic motor which make the autofocus mechanism quieter, has better build quality & smoother bokeh.

The 50/1.8 is a good lens, although mine did fall apart after a year. However, it might be too long if it's going to be your only lens, because attaching it to a 20d would turn it an 80mm lens.

Oh yeah, forget canon's 50/1.4 if you want a really good 1.4 lens. Check out Sigma's version, much sharper and the bokeh is creamy :)

From all of my research, the 50mm 1.4 isn't enough of an improvement to justify the inflated price over the 1.8, sure the bokeh is a little better, its a little faster, and probabbly a bit sharper at 1.8 and 2.0 than the 1.8 lens, but I find it really hard to justify the price, as the 50mm 1.8 is just such an excellent lens optically.

I recently had to choose between upgrading my 50mm 18 to a 1.4, or getting a more general purpose Sigma 30mm 1.4. I went the Sigma 30mm, as it presented a much bigger upgrade over my 28mm 2.8 than a 50mm 1.4 would over a 50mm 1.8. Now my 30mm 1.4 is my "normal" lens and my 50mm is more suited to more personal close up portrait type work.

The 30mm 1.4 offers a full 2 stop improvement over the 28mm 2.8, along with excellent sharpness, bokeh and build quality. Whereas the 50mm 1.4 only offers a 2/3 stop improvement over the 1.8.

In general, I personally wouldn't recommend the Canon 50mm 1.4 over the 1.8, I would only recommend the 1.2 if you need a faster Canon 50mm lens than the 1.8, as it is actually a serious upgrade, but few can stomach the price. Or if you beat your camera gear to hell, then the 50mm 1.8's poor build quality will not stand the test of time, however i've yet to have any problems related to build quality with the 50mm other than "it feels cheap".

For the price difference of the 1.4 and 1.8, you could buy a 28mm 2.8 or a 35mm 2.0, in addition to the 50mm 1.8, which makes it an even worse buy for a first time buyer.

Also, if anyone is worried about build quality on the 1.8, pick up a used 1.8 Mark I, which has the build of the 28mm 2.8, metal mount, distance scale, etc. This run about $135-150 and looks like this:
http://gerrygibbscamerawarehouse.com.au/images/canon_ef_50mm_f1.8_ll_lens.jpg

disanski

01-06-2011, 09:32 AM

I would not recommend the 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 to anyone ..
First thing you need to do is find out what you want to shoot with it.
The 50mm 1.8 is great lens for start and because it is prime lens it makes you think a bit more instead of just turning the zoom .... It is a bit long if you put it on a crop body as 20d, lets say if you are in a bar or a room and you need to take sot of few of your friends it might be a bit too long .... with that said it is fantastic lens for that price ..
The 50mm 1.4 is very good as well but if you are just starting out you better wait before you spend money on it because you might actually not be able to use the full capability of it- at 1.4 is very very soft and the DOF is so tiny and it takes a lot of practicing before you actually can use it :)
So to sum it up I would recommend the 50mm 1.8 as a starring lens - it is so cheap that even if you don't like it you would not feel bad for it :) Not sure about the 20 d l..... have never seen one.
:)
Good luck and if you have more questions let us know :)

P.S. I was thinking about recommending the older make of the lens but i have not personally used it so i was not sure but it is a fantastic idea. I had the older nikkor 50mm 1.8 and it is made in Japan not in china and it feels so much sturdier.

EarthQuake

01-06-2011, 09:37 AM

Yeah the only reason I would recommend the 18-55mm is again, because its dirt cheap, and because at 18mm it gives a much wider range than anything anywhere near the price, so unless you can afford a $300 20mm 2.8, or the $700 10-22mm or $700 for the 17-40mm 4L, the 18-55mm is good *for what it is*, not to say it is a good lens, but there isn't really a good alternative to the wide range.

All i'm saying is that, if you can get it with a body, or pick it up cheap, dont throw it away! You'll find some use for this lens. It is NOT a good general purpose lens, or a lens you want to leave on your camera all the time tho, only the wide end is really useful for the reasons mentioned previously.

disanski

01-06-2011, 10:05 AM

Yep if you are to replace that lens with the same range but for a better quality lens they all cost .... a lot of money :)
I am just all in for the 50 mm 1.8 :)

EarthQuake

01-06-2011, 10:15 AM

Yeah the nifty fifty is the lens no-one should be without!

I did a quick little test to show a few different ranges, this is:
18mm 3.5
30mm 1.4
50mm 1.8

All of these are taken "wide open" at 3.5, 1.4, 1.8 respectively. Taken on a tripod about 10-12 feet away from the subject, at this distance bokeh doesn't really come into play much with the 50mm being the exception, its "long" enough here that not everything is in focus, giving a softer looking result than the other two lenses. All lenses at 3.5 may have been a better test, oh well.

Sized down to 1080 and a tiny bit(35% at 1.2) of unsharp mask applied uniformly. Certainly not a scientific test of image quality, but you can see for practical purposes, the wide end of the 18mm lens is very useful, and you wont shriek in horror when viewing the results, even wide open. Most dertimental thing with the 18mm in this test? You'll have to use it on a tripod at 3.5, where the 1.4 and 1.8 lenses you can hand hold. HOWEVER, for how most people would use a wide angle lens like this, you'll likely be using it on a tripod regardless.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/499159/183050compare.jpg

disanski

01-06-2011, 12:03 PM

Great example :)
that should help a lot now.
Beautiful light coming from the window :) you should replace the Christmas tree with some females and make a second test ? :)
heh

Xoliul

01-06-2011, 12:56 PM

Very interesting, thanks EQ. Too bad I can't see the exif data anymore, would've been interesting to see all the info.
Speaking of a tripod, I'm sure there are lightweight, portable solutions for this? My dad has this big one that weights at least a kilo at home, but I wouldn't wanna haul that.

Xoliul

01-06-2011, 01:58 PM

SHEPEIRO

01-06-2011, 05:33 PM

love my cheap canon 50mm ^^ also get alot of use out of the 10-22 i have... just be sure to not get your GF towards the side of the shot...she wont like it

EarthQuake

01-06-2011, 09:13 PM

So I checked my dad's lenses, he has:
Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5
Sigma 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5

The Sigma is more expensive, the Nikon is not that special. I'm thinking it might be interesting to get something like a D80 then, so i can use those lenses ?

Yeah really for a tripod, unless you've got a massive telephoto zoom lens, all you need is something cheap and light with a quick release, however how I feel about tripods is this: I just never really seem to take it out because its a pain in the ass to carry. I just got a cheap($36 shipped) Canon 500 monopod with the idea that hopefully I will actually take it out and use it a bit more.

However again, while a tripod helps with a slow lens, and a stationary object, it does nothing to help with a subject that is moving(even slightly at lower shutter speeds can kill a shot).

Those lenses would be good to start with, but neither is particularly special, I wouldn't say those lenses are reason enough to go Nikon(not that i'm saying you shouldn't go Nikon). Nikon actually has a few lenses i'm envious of, like the 35mm 1.8 which can be had for about $200 or so, cheaper and faster than the Canon 35mm 2.0.

I've had that 18-35mm Sigma lens in a Nikon mount and sold it on eBay, I really wasn't impressed with it, but also didn't have a Nikon digital body to test it on. The AF was really loud and the build quality was poor, but I may have had a bad one. You can get the 18-35mm for less than $100, and its been replaced (from reading reviews) much better Sigma 15-30mm. Reading reviews people prefer the Consina/Vivitar/Tokina 19-35mm.

So when looking into a body/camera system really you should try and figure out what sort of lenses you feel you'll need in the future, and see if Camera XXXX's system offers something appealing to you there. IMO Canon really has the best line of AF lenses, where Nikon has been playing catch up for a while now.

Now having said all that, i've used a friends D3000 i think it was, and it was very comfortable to hold. Felt much better than the Canon XXXD line. I think in general nikon bodies are have a little more heft to them and feel more comfortable.

Paul Pepera

01-06-2011, 09:25 PM

Also keep in mind Canon EF-S lenses are probably not good long term investments since they will not fit on some higher end bodies like the 5D, if you ever decide to upgrade to full frame in the future that is.

EarthQuake

01-06-2011, 10:44 PM

Yeah, but used lenses hold their value very well, so buying ef-s lenses is only really a big deal if you're gonna upgrade to a 5D in 6 months or something, most people getting their first body, getting some use out of an EF-S lens for a few years with a relatively small loss when you sell it and upgrade to something that works on full frame isnt really a big deal.

Xoliul

01-07-2011, 09:22 AM

Sheesh this choosing is really difficult:

-either I go with Canon and disregard the 2 lenses I already have. I'd spend about 200 on a 20D then and get a 50mm prime and an 18-55 or something. Probably the cheapest option. I have the downside of buying an older used body, which some people have advised against already.
Or I go Nikon for the two lenses. Then I'd get either:
-a used D70 or D80 + with a 35mm prime. cheaper total
-a used D200 or S5 pro equiv. lot more expensive body, but I dan get this with some warranty left
-a new D3100. Peace of mind about warranty but higher price. No autofocus on the lenses though, not sure about that. I do get video, live view and a big LCD, plus the smallest size of them all (would be very nice). Also most expensive option as I'd want the prime lens on top too.

disanski

01-07-2011, 10:16 AM

from all of this I would get the d80 + 35mm... or the d 200.
With the d3100 you will not have autofocus with the lens that dont have motor in them all the rest should work fine.
The 20d is a bit too old I think.

EarthQuake

01-10-2011, 03:28 PM

I had a dream the other night that I smashed apart my 50mm Mark II and had an excuse to start looking for a 50mm Mark I.... Sillyness

Xoliul: I would highly suggest against getting a body that doesn't support the older style Nikon lenses, as you're cutting yourself off from a *HUGE* selection of Nikon and 3rd party lenses if your body only supports the newer lenses with the built in focus motors.

IMO this is something that Canon and Minolta(Compatible with Sony these days) have over both Nikon and Pentax, ALL Canon/Minolta AF lenses are the motor-in-lens type, and some of the early lenses A. can be had cheap and B. are better quality than the newer models that have worse build quality. The older Nikon/Pentax AF lenses seem to be pretty crappy honestly(Af speed, noise, etc but this may be highly dependent on the camera body), compared to Canon, however I would still atleast want the option of using them.

Now the opposite to that is of course, Canon and Minolta switched to entirely new mounts, making all older MF lenses obsolete. So with Nikon and Pentax you can use the older MF lenses a bit easier. This means auto aperture(you can focus wide open an the camera will stop down the lens automatically) as apposed to manual stop down metering that you would do with a MF lens(m42, olympus OM, pentax, nikon) adapted to a Canon camera.

Canon as well is pretty notorious for breaking comparability with older third party lenses, so you've gotta be careful buying older Sigma/Quantaray/Etc lenses designed for AF film bodies. Older third part Nikon mount lenses that require the in-body focus motor tend to be compatible more often than older third party lenses on Canon bodies. When I say older i'm talking 10-20 years.

Entity

01-11-2011, 02:11 AM

Agreed, older nikkor lenses are sex. I'm particularly fond of my 105mm f/2.5, really sharp and easy enough to handhold at >1/60s

EarthQuake

01-11-2011, 09:26 AM

Yes, however you can't use Olympus Zuiko and M42 Takumars(and many other M42 lenses) on Nikon bodies without adaptors that require corrective glass and reduce image quality, and both can be found for good prices, often less than Nikon MF glass.

Canon can use:
Olympus OM
Pentax/Universal screw mount M42
Pentax K
Nikon
Leica R

Possibly a few more that i'm forgetting?

disanski

01-12-2011, 08:22 AM

I have decided to sell my Nikon d90 :( ... and I think I can get a canon 5d mark I or the Nikon d300 does anybody has experience with any of those? I know the 5d mark I is very old byt it looks like it has everything I would be looking for in a camera and it is full frame :) The d300 has 51 AF points and this is the only part that makes me think getting this one instead of the 5d.... I am a little bit disappointed of the D90 autofocusing especially if I am a bit further away from my subject. Lets say I am going to shoot a full body portrait with my 50 mm lens ... i have so meny shots that the autofocus is just not there .....
any thoughts .... ?

EarthQuake

01-12-2011, 08:49 AM

If you have a large collection of Nikon lenses, I would probabbly stick with Nikon and get the D300. However, and I dont know what the price range on a D300 is, but if you're looking at comparable prices between the two, the 5D being full frame would be the obvious choice IMO. But i'm a Canon guy too, so bias etc.

I haven't used a 5D, but I have played around a bit with a 1Ds Mark I, which is a huge beast of a camera, wonder feel and features, beautiful big viewfinder, however just simply massive. The 5D seems to be the reasonable equivalent of the 1D, and really the sane choice for a pro body these days.

Looking at prices a bit, a better direct comparison would probably be a 7D, just some quick glances it looks like the Nikon has a bit better ISO performance, but the canon has more resolution(so the higher per-pixel noise performance is moot), and a really nice video mode. 7D does 100-12800 ISO, whereas the 300D does 100-6400.

The 5D Mark I does have a max ISO of 3200, which is pretty limited to say the least. But i do a lot of low light stuff, this may not be a problem for everyone.

At the end of the day i would say: Full frame? Get a 5d, Crop? Toss up between D300 and 7D.

[edit] Looks like used 5D's start at $800 used, which sounds fan-fucking-tastic. And a 5D Mark II used is about the same as a 7D/D300s New, in the $1600-2000 range

disanski

01-12-2011, 09:09 AM

Thanks EQ .
I found the 5d and d300 for about 1000$ bouth ..... I never really had to use ISO more than 800 or may be it is because the image quality gets horrible on the cameras i have got so far. I dont have any other lenses except the 50 mm 1.8 so this does not meter.
I had the chance to play with 1d mark I as well and .... yeaa it is a beast :) and it is heavy as hell :), but the images compared to my nikon d90 were sooo much crisper. I need to exercise if I am getting one of them. I could find this one for 1000 $ as well second hand but for now I think the 5d is attracting my attention the most....also because my friend is using canon and we could use the same lens because neither her or me use our cameras every single day and if we do we are at the same location and shooting together so that way she can get the 50mm and I can get the 85 and done deal :)
Such a difficult decision to make...... if only the focus on that d90 was working a touch better I would not think about getting new camera.
Edit: oo about the 7d ... this is a lot more expensive :) and I dont care about the video... never even turned it on on my d90 :)

EarthQuake

01-12-2011, 09:21 AM

Oh well if thats the case, go canon, get the 5D because its full frame, get the 50mm 1.8 for $100, and look at the 85mm 1.8(same crop as the 50mm 1.8 on your D90) or the 100mm 2.0 either for about $325.

Unless of course you're used to that crop 50 range, and dont really require much more. If you're not doing a lot of wide angle stuff, a crop body isnt a bad thing. One of the biggest reasons to get a full frame body is because a 28mm lens(EF 28mm 2.8, $175) is actually a wide lens, not ~45mm normal lens equivalent crop.

Me personally, I would rather use a 50mm 1.8 as a "normal lens" because of the flattering perspective of that range, my Sigma 30mm 1.4 "normal" lens isn't too nice to some people's faces! And of course the massive perspective distortion at 18mm(28mm equiv) range. But now you're dropping $300+ on a proper portrait lens as well.

Now of course, if you get a 85mm lens, you have the added benifit of the even more pleasing perspective distortion of a proper portait lens, which is a good thing, along with the EF 85mm 1.8 being an excellent lens.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/85mm.htm

poopinmymouth

01-12-2011, 09:30 AM

5D supremacy. You could shoot for years with just the 5D and 50mm 1.8 and never "need" anything else.

poopinmymouth

01-12-2011, 09:31 AM

disanski

01-12-2011, 09:49 AM

Thanks again guys :) All I want to shoot is portraits I don't care about the wide angle lens. I know the 50 mm on a crop body was just a bit too long for indoor, which means it will be perfect on a FF body and one day when I have money ( which is probably never going to happen :) :) ) I just need to get the 85mm 1.8 and I am done :)
So I guess I just need to sell the d90 and I am all set. Also my friend has the 50 mm 1.4 :) I can't wait to barrow them :)
Thanks ocne again for your opinions guys really appreciated.

EarthQuake

01-12-2011, 10:09 AM

That said, adding the 35mm f/2 (or sigma 30mm 1.4, or if you really love 35mm like I do, Canon 35mmL) and the 85mm 1.8 will give you every lens you need unless you're a sports journalist or bird photographer.

Sigma 30mm 1.4 is crop only, which is a shame and means I'll have to sell mine when I upgrade to full frame, but thats ok, i'll probabbly get a 50mm 1.4 at that point anyway. And then either the 28mm 1.8 or 35 2. Resell prices on the 30mm is just slightly less than what I paid for it new($375 compared to $415) so not a big deal yet.

Entity

01-12-2011, 10:22 AM

I'd go with a 5d Mk1, i've seen files from both the 7D and D300s and i'm not really impressed.

Xoliul

01-12-2011, 12:34 PM

So I just bought a Finepix S5 Pro (http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs754.ash1/164522_493696634183_572699183_5783324_2031953_n.jp g) (which is based on a D200 body). I got the 18-55 f3.5-5.6 along with it for 30 euros but I can tell straight away it's pretty shitty compared to the two lenses I have. Been playing a bit with it, it's fun how right away it's clear I can do so much more with this than the previous cam.

I wanna go get a 50mm or 35mm f1.8 tomorrow. I'm wondering, would a 35mm DX be as widely applicable as 35mm with crop ?

EarthQuake

01-12-2011, 04:46 PM

35mm = 52.5mm on Nikon(1.5) crop, so it would be a very good general purpose lens, but you should also get the 50mm if you're interested in portraiture at all, as a 35mm lens is too wide to be particularly attractive for portraiture.

You can also find the Nikon 28mm 2.8 AF for $100-150 used on ebay, which is a steal if you want something a little wider than the 35mm. You'll probably want the 35mm and 50mm at some point, but to start off, i'de suggest the 50mm and a 28mm, because of the cheap ass price of both(not that the Nikon 35mm 1.8 is expensive) and the wider range you'll get out of these two lenses. The 28mm will function as your wider lens, you'll use it for landscapes, architectural, crowds, and anywhere your 50mm is too tight to use. The 50mm will function as a tight general purpose lens, when you want to be a bit more close and personal, when you want to use DOF more creatively, when you want to take pictures of single people close up or small groups from a moderate distance, and when you have low light.

The 35mm is a blend of both of these lenses, if you just had to buy ONE, it would probably be a good choice, but you'll likely want both in the future, and I would always suggest a 50mm to start with. However, when you consider the cost of a 28mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8 could be about $250, the 35mm alone doesn't look that attractive. I am not a Nikon guy however, so this 28mm 2.8 lens could = shit, doubtful tho, as most primes are intrinsically good lenses to have, unless convenience is your main concern.

The real important thing to remember when thinking crop is that a wide angle is always a wide angle lens, even on a crop body. This means the DOF and perspective distortion properties will stay the same, and when someone says a 35mm = 52.5mm, all that is referring to is section of the lens the sensor sees, not that it transforms any of the lens's native characteristics.

Wide angles exaggerate proportions, the wide the more far apart relationships between objects will seem. Wide angle lenses naturally reach infinity much sooner, this means that at at a shorter distance(relative to a "normal" 50mm lens or portrait/telephoto) you'll hit the point where regardless of your FStop, you're going to have a very wide depth of feild. So wide angle lenses are harder to use for creative depth of feild stuff, like isolating the subject from the background, as you have to be closer the the subject(over 10 feet away on a 28mm is going to be pretty much infinite DOF). However, you can always get closer to your subject with a wide angle lens as well, so there is a trade off there.

28mm and 35mm lenses are "wide angles" although the 35mm barely qualifies as such, 40-60mm range is considered a "normal" lens, 70-100 is "portrait" anything above 100 is a telephoto of some sort, and anything below 24mm is an "ultra wide", and generally below 14mm is a fisheye, but a few zooms and primes have been made in this range that arent fish-eye.

Now with your 18-55mm lens, if you read up what I wrote on my canon lens, consider this lens a 18mm 3.5 lens. Do not even think about using this lens for other ranges, cheap primes can be found that do a *much much* better job, like the 28mm, 35mm and 50mm. However at the 18mm range, you will spend a lot of money to get a good prime. SO, a 18mm 3.5 cheapo lens is a bargain for 30 euros, you'll end up using this when you want really wide shots, landscape, cramped interiors(with enough light of course, or a tripod!), etc.

Sorry if i'm repeating some of this from earlier posts, just a few important points I feel are good to hammer home.

poopinmymouth

01-12-2011, 05:01 PM

That said (and all of it true) portraits do not have to be closeups of faces. It will take you a while to figure out your shooting style, but I'd say 80% of my portraits are with a 35mm lens on a full frame camera. (meaning it's actually wide angle)

http://www.mr-chompers.com/photos/photos-55.jpg

http://www.mr-chompers.com/photos/photos-50.jpg

http://www.mr-chompers.com/photos/photos-34.jpg

erik!

01-12-2011, 05:49 PM

Dammit you guys are not helping me refrain from buying a MkII before spring weather arrives.

EarthQuake

01-12-2011, 05:58 PM

Absolutely, and understanding how the lens works is vital. You can take photos of people with any sort of lens, wide angles can also be used to exaggerate proportions in very specific and artful ways, for instance pulling the lankiness out of a skinny model, very common in fashion photography, or making weird, strangely proportioned people look even weirder.

Now for more subtle type of portraits, with a wide angle lens like a 35mm doing portraiture, getting a little distance between you and the subject helps, as the closer you are the more exaggerated the proportions will end up being. With Ben's 35mm here, you can see he has some good distance between him and his subjects, which helps to minimize the negative aspects of perspective distortion. A 35mm lens while technically a wide angle lens, is the most subtle wide angle you can get, which makes it a very good general purpose lens, esp on full frame.

His 2nd shot down creates a very cool "infinity" type effect because of the relationship that the trees have, something that would look much more compressed and "closer" on a 50mm or 85mm lens.

Xoliul

01-13-2011, 06:25 AM

Just bought the 50mm f/1.8, got a good price new at 145.
Don't think i'll be getting a 28 prime soon though, as i have the 28-105 for that angle. Same for using the 18-55 just for 18mm, I think I'd prefer the Sigma 18-35 there.
Btw thanks for all the advice Earthquake and others, really cool I can also get this at Polycount :)

Zpanzer

01-13-2011, 10:01 AM

I could use an advice too about all this camera gear thingy.

At the moment I have a Canon 450D with a 50mm 1.8 II and a Sigma 18-125mm 3.5-5.6(no is, no usm or anything) and I've been thinking about getting me a 30mm prime since I find the 50mm on my crop sensor to be very limiting at times and my Sigma lens image quality just doesnt cut it most of the times. Since I'm living on an interns salary(meaning I have 1400 dollars a month to live for, and 450 of them already go to paying rent) I have a hard time choosing wether I should opt for a new camera body(like a 550d or the new 60d), or that 30mm... Any ideas?

EarthQuake

01-13-2011, 10:18 AM

A 550D or 60D isn't going to provide a huge upgrade, unless you want to do video. The 450D is a totally capable camera and likely isn't "holding you back" when it comes to taking pictures, so I wouldn't consider an upgrade here.

Now, for the 30mm ish range you have a few choices

Canon 28mm 2.8 $175
Canon 35mm 2.0 $225
Canon 28mm 1.8 $375
Sigma 30mm 1.4 $425(NEW, all other prices are used) - This is the lens I went with, upgrading from the 28mm 2.8. Buy it new, this lens has focusing issues and you will likely need to send it and your camera body to sigma for calibration, which is free other than $10 to ship it to them, and mine was back in about 7 days(amazing fast), and works great now.
Canon 35mm 1.4L $1200 Looking at the price of this lens, the Sigma 30mm at 1.4 is a bargain even with the issues.

So I would say, $200 range, 28mm 2.8 or 35mm 2.0 get the 35 if you want a little faster, get the 28 if you want a little wider.

For $400, the 28mm 1.8 or 30mm 1.4, get 1.4 if you want the speed, and the 1.8 if you dont want to deal with Sigma's service center.

EarthQuake

01-13-2011, 02:41 PM

Got a PM from sampson asking about P&S cameras, which is fair game for this thread.

Hey,
I was wondering if you could help me out with some camera's....

I wanted to get a good p&s to take into concerts for both stills and videos. It'd have to be capable of handling loud volume up to some degree as well as taking decent quality in low-light.

I've looked around there seems to be the s95 which apparantly can't zoom in when taking videos? and doesn't do audio very well but its quality is good. What could be some other options?

My budget is $400 MAX (obviously the cheaper, the better),

thanks
Sam

And my response:

Hey, first off, feel free to post in the camera thread, it doesnt have to be strictly SLR advice. Now saying that, my first instinct when hearing someone is willing the shell out $400 for a P&S is: BUY AN SLR!!

You'll spend more upfront on a dSLR, but possibly less over time. A dSLR is a good investment, it holds its value in resale much better than a P&S, so when you decide to sell your camera in 2-3 years, you'll make back a large chunk of that initial cost, and be able to put that into upgrades. Also you can simply upgrade the body and keep your lens(es). Plus, an SLR simply blows a P&S out of the water, even the best P&S compared to the worst dSLR, you'll get better flexibility and image quality, as more creative control. The tiny sensors in P&S cameras mean not only do you get more noise and worse image quality, but you get wide depth of field, which means its much harder to do artistic DOF shots with nice blurry backgrounds.

Now, if you absolutely NEED to have a P&S, the Canon S90 and S95 are said to be very good. I'm not really an expert on Audio/Video recording, and dont know the specifics of the S90/95's features, but for loud audio, you will likely want something capable of using an external mic, like the Canon 550D. I dont think the built in audio on either a dSLR or P&S is going to be high quality.

One thing to note, at the wide end the S90/95 is a 2.0 lens, but at the long end its a very slow 6.3 lens, so even if you could zoom in you'd get very poor low light results out of it in those ranges.

Here are a couple videos:
Showing the difference in bokeh(out of focus areas) on the s95 and an SLR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XRKY...eature=related
some lowlight video tests on s95/slr: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=449eSdi4z0M

Heres one of the better sample videos I could find from the s95, you see in most shots the depth of field isn't particularity great, it looks like there is some "tilt/shift" mode in there, but looks like its just post processed blur: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQR2r...eature=related

And some 550d videos (do a google video search for "550d test"):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYqgE...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pco4O...eature=related

So the main conclusion to pull from video quality here is, the 550D will offer a very much "high end" film look, and the s95 while excellent for a P&S, is still a point and shoot at heart, and really isn't going to give you much improvement in the "look at fee" of your video, only really improvements in noise performance and low light shooting over a more standard P&S.

Now this gets very subjective and depends on your shooting style and what you intend to take videos of of course, if you want wide shots with DOF clear into the distance, a P&S type camera would be better, if you want more artistic control over your focus, a more "filmic" look with the ability to isolate your subject from the fore/background, and SLR is going to be what you want.

poopinmymouth

01-13-2011, 02:41 PM

The 35mm L is worth it. :-D

EarthQuake

01-13-2011, 02:50 PM

The 35mm L is worth it. :-D

I dunno, I think it would be a pretty hard argument to make that the 35L is 3x as good as the 30mm 1.4. I'm certainly not going to say the 30mm 1.4 is a better lens, but I do believe its a much better value. The 35L is your only choice if you want a fast(1.4) wide on full frame tho!

Entity

01-13-2011, 03:10 PM

Or you could wait for Samyang's version to come out, which should be good (mf only though)

EarthQuake

01-13-2011, 03:24 PM

Curse you samyang! I actually got really fucking excited looking at Samyang's ~$300 85mm 1.4 lens, only to realize it was a MF lens. IMO a MF "fast" lens is basically useless, because you'll end up dropping down a stop or two just to ensure you have good focus, blah. Better to just buy the EF 85mm 1.8.

Entity

01-13-2011, 03:32 PM

thomasp

01-13-2011, 03:32 PM

as for the canon point & shoot models: i briefly owned a 2009 model and shooting with it meant digging through too many menu options via the clickwheel all the time. it felt very slow to use as opposed to an SLR that for one has way more buttons on the case, placed in a more ergonomic fashion and even lets you customize which function goes where (mine does, anyway).
also getting pictures off it wasn't straightforward on the apple if one wanted to avoid canon's suite of bloatware since the camera didn't register as a standard USB mass storage device (again, mine does).

i gave it to my dad, he cares more about the small form factor than anything and isn't big into fiddling with images on the computer.

EarthQuake

01-13-2011, 03:48 PM

Yeah..but it becomes somewhat bearable if you have a good focusing screen + huge viewfinder. I have a Katzeye screen installed in my D700 and focusing fast mf lenses is ok, I get the occasional oof shot with a 35/1.4 and 105/25 (although that's probably because of my own body movement)

Still, nothing compared to using a rangefinder. Even focusing a noctilux is easy on those things (50/0.95!)

Yeah my 350D's viewfinder is terrible, absolutely horrid. I got a cheapo split image focus screen from china for like $25 that is ok, i enjoy playing around with MF lenses but would never really buy them for my own use(I buy and sell plenty on ebay tho!).

Its said that the viewfinder in a modern SLR can never show brighter than F2.0 or 2.8 or something, so a 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 MF lens is just an excerzie in futility! Older 35mm cameras had focus screens that were better suited to fast lenses, as a 50mm 1.4 was a very common "standard lens" with a lot of 35mm kits.

poopinmymouth

01-13-2011, 04:26 PM

Yeah my 350D's viewfinder is terrible, absolutely horrid. I got a cheapo split image focus screen from china for like $25 that is ok, i enjoy playing around with MF lenses but would never really buy them for my own use(I buy and sell plenty on ebay tho!).

Its said that the viewfinder in a modern SLR can never show brighter than F2.0 or 2.8 or something, so a 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 MF lens is just an excerzie in futility! Older 35mm cameras had focus screens that were better suited to fast lenses, as a 50mm 1.4 was a very common "standard lens" with a lot of 35mm kits.

That´s not true with the dslrs that have user changeable screens. The 5D and 40d both have screens you can buy that show true DOF on faster than f/2 lenses.

EarthQuake

01-13-2011, 04:33 PM

Yeah what I read must have just been referring to the default focus screens?

poopinmymouth

01-13-2011, 04:36 PM

Yes, they use microlens channels that are scattered in a random array. This makes them visually brighter, but inaccurate at showing true focus, as they "grab and display" out of focus rays (which is how they are brighter). The focusing aid screens use perfectly parallel lens channels that show only what's in focus. They are noticeably dimmer on slow kit lenses, but show true focus and are fine brightness wise on lenses like the 50 1.8 and 35mm 1.4

EarthQuake

01-13-2011, 04:43 PM

And theoretically this could be done with any camera that lets you replace the focus screen yes? Its just that canon doesn't actually make replacement screens for the rebel series, they are replacable tho. Which probably gives some merit as to why the "Catz eyes" screens are more expensive than the generic chinese ones.

poopinmymouth

01-13-2011, 04:58 PM

Yes. I bought one for my 40D, but honestly manual focusing on a crop screen is still ass.

Japhir

02-16-2011, 12:32 AM

Hey guys,

I've recently gotten quite a bit of cash for my birthday so as to buy a nice camera. Now, since you guys are usually pretty awesome with camera's I'd like to ask you for advice.

A friend already recommended the following camera's to me:

Cheaper, starter models:
-Canon 1000D
-Canon 1100D (new)
-Nikon D3000
-Nikon D3100 (new)

More professional models:
-Canon 500D
-Canon 550D
-Canon 600D (new)
-Niko D5000

I think I want to spend about 500 (675$) euros on this baby. I'm a starter with good camera's, but I'd like to learn stuff :). Expect my pictures in the "Post 1 good picture thread".
So have you got any advice?

disanski

02-16-2011, 12:49 AM

I must look for one of those focusing screens. Yesterday i was trying to focus in a darker area and it was just impossible and even if the viewfinder on the 5d is just big enough it was still hard to tell on a f/ 1.8 is the focus on the eyes of my model or a little behind .. ( and of course it was behind ) :)
Which once are you guys using i dont know nothing about those focusing screens.

aesir

02-16-2011, 12:50 AM

Entity

02-16-2011, 12:53 AM

katzeye are recommended by many but they are pricey (but the brightscreen? feature is worth it)

focusingscreen.com is another good alternative, but make sure you do a lot of research because some of their screens are crap.

Entity

02-16-2011, 12:56 AM

I would stay away from compacts unless it has a big sensor like the m4/3's or something like the ricoh gxr/sony nex/samsung nx10

disanski

02-16-2011, 12:59 AM

Great to hear man.
Here is another thread and there is plenty of talking about cameras in it :
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79655

I never used any of the cameras you listed but for starting camera any one of those should be fine :) Go to the store and pick each one of them in your hand and play with them to see how they feel in your hand.
The problem for those cameras is that they dont have focusing motor in the body so if you get them you cant use lenses without focusing motor in the lens itself. (which means that you wil have to focus manually)
Think about what do you want to shoot? Portraits, landscape, sports, macro.. i know it is hard to know if you are just starting now but you must have some idea :)
Once you know that try to find good lens that will work for you and then see if you want to go Nikon or Canon.
Also If you can get older body - used but higher class- depends how you feel about getting second hand stuff .
Would be great if you continue this in the other thread so all the conversation stays in the same thread.
I hope that was helpful.
edit :
yep those are big and you dont have them with you all the time and sometimes you are just .. damn i wish i had my camera :)
The new Sony nex and Olympus pen are great cameras and it might be good idea to start off with one of them :)

chrisradsby

02-16-2011, 01:13 AM

I own the Canon 550D, it's a really nice camera. Since I'm just taking up photography myself I decided to go for that one instead of the 70D. The stock-lens that comes with isn't really that great. I bought a 28mm f1.8 USM lens with it.

Tbh I'd rather spend more money in the beginning making sure you get a really nice camera-body and then save up for some nice lenses later.

You can look at some of my shots at
http://swedishgeek.com

Headshots taken with my 50mm f1.4 USM and landscape & half-to-full bodyshots with my 28mm.

SHEPEIRO

02-16-2011, 06:42 AM

i got the 500D and i love it...slightly regretting not spending the extra for the FUll HD video of the 550D but not too much at the time the differnce was nearly £250

and a DSLR is so versatile.... way more than a compact will ever be....

Japhir

02-16-2011, 08:04 AM

aah, i've been redirected here from my own thread (http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81230).
Thanks a lot for the effort you guys put into writing this down! I still have no idea what to buy now though, so the main conclusion of this thread is: buy good lenses > buy good body, right?

Thanks.

Xoliul

02-16-2011, 08:19 AM

Hey Japhir one thing I really considered when buying a DSLR, is that those cheaper models like the D3100 and so don't have an internal Autofocus motor. Which means that quite a few lenses won't be able to AF on those models. For me, all but one of my 4 lenses wouldn't have had AF, something i didn't really want. You're probably going to want something like a 35-50mm prime as one of your first lenses (I'd recommend it, it's fun) and those lenses all lack an internal motor.
What I got was a second hand Fuji S5 Pro (which is based on a D200) for 500 euros. It might lack HD video and live view but does have the AF motor.

disanski

02-16-2011, 08:42 AM

Thanks Entity. I checked katzeye but I dont think they have one for 5d and even if they had i was thinning about something a little cheaper.
Will dig in to focusingscreen.com when I have more time and try to research what could be good option for my camera.
Thanks again.

Entity

02-16-2011, 09:00 AM

No problem :) From what I remember canon used to sell their own focusing screens for the 5D, not sure if it's still available though. But from what I can tell the screens @ focusingscreen.com seem to be canon stock, so you should be ok :)

When it comes to focusingscreens, I typically prefer those that focus with the horizontal split (eg EC-B) rather than the microprism type (EC-A). It's much easier to focus when all you have to do is align the top half with the bottom half.

EarthQuake

02-16-2011, 09:36 AM

so the main conclusion of this thread is: buy good lenses > buy good body, right?

This is my motto when it comes to buying gear. My best lens cost more than my camera body. When you get a nice lens that you like, you're far less likely to replace it, now with a camera body, dSLR tech is moving so fast that you'll probably be looking at a new body every 2-3 years(just like a PC, lol). Lenses also tend to keep value much better than bodies. So dont feel like you need to get the newest bestest body that costs $800, because you can probably pick up last year's model for $500 used, or the year before that for $400 used.

Now getting quality used lenses, you'll often pay 75-85% of the new cost. Quality lenses are almost always a good investment, if you use them for 2 years and decide to sell, you'll be able to get a lot of that money back, and you'll have used the lens for 2 years. Which makes you feel better about dropping $400 on a lens.

Also, I pretty much exclusively buy used lenses, and I snipe them on eBay and wait for cheap prices. This means that when I resell, I can sell the lens for more than what I paid. This is quite easy to do.

Also, I would say get a Canon, because of the compatibility issues with various Nikon bodies/lenses. Every Canon EF lens works on every Canon EF(EOS) body. Look at a used 500D body + EF 50mm 1.8(should be $100 new, used isnt really worth it for this lens). 500D has all the modern bells and whistles, live view, HD(720p) video, but without the high cost of the 550D or 7D.

If you dont need liveview or HD video, get a dirt cheap 20D!

Avoid the 1000D, as this is basically an even worse line than the standard Digital Rebels, from what I understand. How it works is:

XXXXD = Lowest class
XXXD = Amateur
XXD = Semi-pro
Xd = Pro

EarthQuake

02-16-2011, 09:45 AM

My personal opinion is to avoid those big clunky DSLRs. Yes, they take great pictures, but a lot of times it's better to just have a camera that can fit in your pocket. You'll use it more often if you don't have to carry it everywhere in your hands, in a pack, or around your neck.

The upcoming Nikon P300 would be an example. It still has manual controls and HD video recording, etc etc. Decide what features you want and then dive into reviews :)

Well when you really think about it, most compact cameras these days are only going to be marginally better than a cell phone camera, where as a dSLR is in an entirely different class, I dont know if you've ever used an SLR or understand much about photography, but I would encourage you to look into the real differences.

Unless you get into the $300-400 range for compacts, its just not comparable, and at that point, spend the money on a real photography tool, suck it up and look like a nerd with your big clunky camera, its worth it.

Besides, i'm sure most people already have a compact camera for the purpose of just throwing it in a pocket when they dont want to take out a dSLR. And for this purpose, its silly to spend more than like $150.

EarthQuake

02-16-2011, 09:50 AM

Japhir: Merged these threads to keep all the info in one spot, hope you dont mind.

aesir

02-16-2011, 10:41 AM

Well when you really think about it, most compact cameras these days are only going to be marginally better than a cell phone camera, where as a dSLR is in an entirely different class, I dont know if you've ever used an SLR or understand much about photography, but I would encourage you to look into the real differences.

Unless you get into the $300-400 range for compacts, its just not comparable, and at that point, spend the money on a real photography tool, suck it up and look like a nerd with your big clunky camera, its worth it.

Besides, i'm sure most people already have a compact camera for the purpose of just throwing it in a pocket when they dont want to take out a dSLR. And for this purpose, its silly to spend more than like $150.

Believe me, I know the difference in quality, it's undeniable. I've just seen a lot of friends pick up a big fancy camera, and then rarely use it because it's a pain to lug around. It just depends on how serious you are about photography.

And a lot of new compact cameras have pretty impressive quality. I think you'd be surprised. But yes, in the 300 dolllar range.

EarthQuake

02-16-2011, 10:45 AM

No matter how sharp you make a compact, or how good the noise performance is going to be, it will never compare to a dSRL, because of the small sensor size. This has huge implications as far as depth of field is concerned, and is essential to creative photography. So with compact SLRs, no matter how good they get, you're still just polishing a turd. You need a big sensor to have full creative control over your photography.

In addition to that, you look at a Canon S95, which has a max aperture of 2.0, which is plenty fast, until you realize that the long end of that zoom lens is a very sluggish 6.3. Even my shity kit lens is at worst 5.6. So that S95 is only fast at the widest end, and wide angle lenses make for poor portraits. And then consider that even with the S95, a recent-ish SLR is going to give atleast 2 stops better noise performance, its just... meh

But yeah, I agree, dont spend the money on it just because "its the best" but because you actually understand the advantages and want to use a dSLR, for *real photography*, not just taking snapshots or whatever casual use, because you likely wont use it enough to justify the cost. But I think the same can be said about expensive compacts as well, if you're just using it for casual use, you likely wont notice the difference between a sub-$100 and a sub-$400 compact.

Dont get me wrong, I see that Canon S95 and want one, but its a totally irrational desire on my part. Everything it does well a dSLR does *much, much* better. For the purposes I would use it for(pocket camera for random shots) my 3 year old Canon Elph performs just fine. For the price, I'd spend $100 more and get a Olympus 4/3rds EP-1, a true SLR in a very small package.

disanski

02-16-2011, 12:08 PM

Thanks Etinity i have never seen the focus screen you are talking about but i will look for more info online :)

Yep I agree with EQ. there are advantages of the size if you get p&s but if you want to learn photography :) go for it :)
With that said you should watch this-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOoGjtSy7xY&feature=player_embedded

a fashion shoot with a iphone :) hahahahhaha
It is not so real because he had a fantastic model, make up, hair and he also had a great lighting so it was no so difficult to shoot this :) even with an iphone.
To be honest with myself i was believing that the gear does not meter so much as long as you understand the basics of photography .... well after having a olympus e 510, nikon d90 , just now that i got my canon 5d I am actually able to achieve the results i was after ... so i dont know how to accept this....
The best thing will be to go to the store and pick each one of those cameras and feel it .. talk to it?? :) (kidding) and just get anything and go with it soon after that you will know what else do you need to serve your needs.
If you go that way you should go for older used dslr and a cheap 50mm 1.8 :) and start posting pictures :)

Xoliul

02-16-2011, 12:51 PM

Hey Disanski, in what way do you feel the 5D is making a difference compared to the previous D90 ?

disanski

02-16-2011, 01:10 PM

Image quality, AF, viewfinder better noise on iso up to 1600 and well it is a full frame camera body :)
I am not very technical so i dont know the details but let me give you an example :) When i was shooting with the d90 and 50mm 1.8 it was impossible to get a decent shot at f/1.8 - 2.8 now with my 5d i still have some shots at f1.8 that are not on the money but they are only 10-20% .. and if this does not mean anything because it could be just me learning what i am doing wrong my friend has a 450d with 50 mm 1.4 canon lens and with those lens at 1.8 for her is still very hard to get sharp shots and to get the focus working correct. If I move the lens to the 5d the focus works much better.
But dont take my word for it because i am still very new to this and up til 1 year ago i was only taking pictures for fun and not really trying to understand what was i doing and I am still very new at this.
For me it comes down to this - are you happy with it or not :)
Was i happy with my d90 -- no :) Am i happy with a 6 years old 5d .. oo yeaa :)
Sorry if i could not give you more detailed answer :)

EarthQuake

02-16-2011, 01:38 PM

I shoot wide open with my Canon 50mm 1.8 and and Sigma 30mm 1.4 pretty often, I think its generally a matter of learning how to deal with the very narrow DOF than anything to do with AF accuracy, however, if you get more "keepers" on your 5D maybe it would make sense.

This could also be due to poorly calibrated lens-body combo. My 50mm has always seemed fine, and I had sigma service my 30mm as it was way off(as is common with these lenses) I send me body+lens to them and they synced it up. However the 5D lets you manually tweak the front/rear focus on a per lens basis!

Unlike oldschool lenses that relied on extreme precision in manufacturing, AF lenses are calibrated electronically, or "in software" to within a certain tolerance, if your body and lens happen to be on the wrong sides of that tolerance, you can have issues and having Canon service it may help, but probably not worth the cost for cheap equipment unless its under warranty.

disanski

02-16-2011, 02:35 PM

I agree again EQ and that is why I said i dont really know all that much about the technical side of the things. However as i said my images look somewhat better with this camera :) At least for me. Could be all in my head :) And I do get more keeper a lot more :)
Also I am sure that by now i learned a bit and it might be normal that i am more careful and think more while shooting wide open - which I do all the time.
I have seen so many great pictures taken with lower class cameras and a lot of photographers with big exhibition and they made it all with lets say 450d .. that is why i posted that video about the iphone :)
I think once you get in to this it all becomes very personal ..
I am sorry if my post sounded like all the lower class cameras are no good - this is just how it worked for me so far ,

EarthQuake

02-16-2011, 02:46 PM

No no no, not at all. I agree completely, I was just trying to shed some light on potentially why you would notice some differences there. Also you were switching from a Nikon system to a Canon system, maybe canon has more accurate AF in general? Dont know.

Also, i'm surprised to hear you've only been shooting for about a year, as your shots look like you have much more experience than that! I've actually only been shooting with my dSLR for about a year as well.

disanski

02-16-2011, 02:56 PM

I think Nikon are the system with better AF :) at least on paper, but go figure it out :) hhah :)
The 5d has the same AF as the 20 d as far as i know and it is even the same on the 5d mark 2 and it only has one cross sensor in the center. I found that used 5d before I found out that it only has one cross sensor AF but the nikon d90 was gone already so i just went for it :)
It has many downsides compared to newer cameras but those are not important for me for now. The other thing I am very happy about is that i can sell it now if I wanted to and not loose any money from it ( not that i am going to)
Currently I am trying to decide should i get new lens or sign up for a short class for intermediate photographers.... :)
Edit :
Thanks for the compliment EQ. As i said i had my olympus for almost 3 years before that but i was using it on auto :) and i was shooting everything without understanding what does dof mean and all the rest of the stuff. I still dont know a lot. It also helps that I went to a workshop half an year ago and met some cool people there as well i had some very good teachers for a long weekend which may not sound like a lot but i definitely learned tons of stuff just by watching them.
Also just now I started editing my photographs and messing with the colors and playing with the mood.
I have to say it is a huge distraction for me and i am even thinking about giving it to someone during the week so i can concentrate more on the 3d :)

Ahrkey

02-17-2011, 01:47 AM

EQ: You say you almost exclusively buy used lenses(on ebay?) and it got me thinking, what do you do/look out for concerning the state(wear, faults, scratches etc) of the lens?

Up until now I've always bought brand new lenses but lately I feel I need to step it up a little... unfortunately the price-tags of said lens were not quick to follow but way ahead.

Maybe it's just a trust issue... :)

Xoliul

02-17-2011, 02:44 AM

Hey Disanski, cool thanks for the answer. I definitely hear ya on 1.8 being hard to focus. Most of my shots with it are discarded as well, but I figure it's more because I'm not really adjusting the AF mode and it being hard to judge focus on the viewfinder. I also find that I need improve most of them to a more acceptable state by downsizing, going to black and white and other little tricks.

Hey and very cool that you've only being doing things for a year, I really wouldn't have been able to tell from your pictures. I hope to see the same sort of results for me in a year. Maybe I should consider a course too. I've even been thinking about going back to school part-time to study photography, not sure if I can combine that with my job though.
I was thinking about it, photography compared to 3D, it's just very satisfying to create nice images with such "limited" possibilities compared to 3D, where you can basically do anything, but it takes sooo much more work. Part of the want of going back to school comes from just wanting to be busy with it a lot more.

Japhir

02-17-2011, 04:16 AM

Ah thanks for merging the threads. I'm gonna go to a shop soon, to be able to hold some in my hand. Was allowed to take some pictures with the 1000D of a friend yesterday, during a party. Felt pretty cool :).

So about lenses, i still don't quite understand what the deal is:
the 'standard' lens is 35mm right? and then you have 50mm which is more of a landscape lens or something? aaargh! :P haha. The mm classify the lens' width and the f the distance of the focal point to the lens? Yeah i'm n00b :P.

Entity

02-17-2011, 04:32 AM

landscape lenses are typically wide lenses, so anything below 35mm. The 50mm is commonly known as a standard lens because it matches what our eyes see. The catch is that when paired with a camera with a smaller/cropped sensor (like the 1000d), the 50mm becomes an 80mm+ lens. This is why many refer to it as a portrait lens.

So if you want a "standard" lens, getting a 35mm makes sense because it becomes a 50mm when you attach it to a APS-C camera.

disanski

02-17-2011, 05:45 AM

I could not find what i was looking for but this should be a good read for a start Japhir :
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

even when you understand what the numbers mean you might still be confused about what lens are better for portrait or landscapes :) as was I :) ( I was pretty sure that the person explaining it to me was wrong when he directed me to 135 mm lens for portraits :) silly me )
So for portraits you would probably get something between 50 - 135 mm and if possible with bigger aperture so you can blur the background and have your subject stand out.
For landscaper most likely you need something like 35 mm or less but those are just guides and you can shoot portraits with any lens out there if you know what you are doing :)

EarthQuake

02-17-2011, 09:45 AM

Traditionally, 85-135mm range is considered "portrait" but 85mm is really the classic portrait lens, as 100mm and 135mm lenses are a bit too tight.

A 50mm is ~ 85mm on digital crop, so its considered a good portrait lens.

One thing that is very important to remember however, a 35mm lens is still a 35mm lens, and a 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens when it comes to lens characteristics, on a crop body the view is just cropped, the optical aspects of the lens is not altered.

So, a 35mm lens is still a wide angle lens, and is going to have a more exaggerated perspective distortion, exaggerate the relationships between objects, where a 50mm is closest to how the eye sees, which is why everything wider or shorter is called something other than "normal". A 85mm lens(and longer) compresses perspective, which can be very pleasing for faces etc, as you avoid the "fisheye" look that is so unattractive for people.

In addition to perspective distortion, we also have focusing characteristics , the wider the lens is, the sooner it hits infinity. My 30mm lens hits infinity at about 10 feet, and my 50mm hits it at probably 30 feet, a 85mm likely hits it at 50 feet or further. Now, this is important when it comes to out of focus blurriness, as after 10 feet, the depth of field is essentially infinite on my 30mm lens, so you've gotta be quite close to you subject to get nice out of focus highlights. Even thought my 50mm lens is a tad slower, it provides much more background blur in every situation except really close up. So while a 30mm lens on a crop is a great general purpose lens, a 50mm lens on a full frame camera is always better. Not to say my 30mm lens isnt good, its just not a 50mm lens.

On the reverse side of that, an 85mm lens produces even better out of focus areas than a 50mm lens, the Canon 85mm 1.8 lens produces "more" bokeh(out of focus highlights) than a the 50mm 1.8, even though they are the same speed. Which is another reason why 85mm lenses are considered portrait lenses, and getting creamy out of focus backgrounds is essential to portraiture, so while a 50mm lens has no "wide" type perspective distortion and has a similar view to a 85mm on crop, it is not an actual portrait lens, but makes a very good facsimile.

Now, a 35mm lens carries with it the least amount of perspective distortion of "wide angle" lenses, so it makes a great general purpose lens, either on full frame or crop. But a 50mm or 85mm will always be considered as better for taking pictures of people, that is not to say that you cant take pictures of people with a 35mm lens of course.

Now, as far as what lens you should buy, if you just want 1 lens, I would go with a 35mm lens. otherwise, I would start with a 50mm lens, and then get a 28mm lens shortly afterwords, as a 50mm an a 35mm lens would represent a very limited range.

Traditional lens classification:
Superwide(on crop) 10-15mm
Fisheye generally 8-15mm
Superwide 16-20mm
Wide angle 24-35mm
Normal 40-60mm
Portrait 85-135mm
Telephoto 135mm +

So, in my mind, a good kit would consist of:

Cheap-o 18-55mm kit lens to get really wide shots on crop, this will be used less often so its ok to go with a cheap zoom
Canon 28mm 2.8, Canon 28mm 1.8 or Sigma 30mm 1.4, depending on budget
Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 85mm 1.8
Cheap-o telephoto zoom for like the 75-300mm, 80-200mm, 55-200mm etc, again cheap because I would use these a lot less often. I have a Canon 80-200mm II because it is super small and light, not the best optical quality, but unlike a super expensive and heavy L series zoom, I would actually put it in my bag and take it with me.

Shaffer

02-17-2011, 10:14 AM

EarthQuake, you are the man for giving me all this info. I just bought a 20d body, kit lens, 2 batteries and a case for $225 a couple weeks ago. Have been playing around with it and reading about lenses that a noob like me should be looking at.

Didn't think I was going to find the perfect thread for my camera on polycount. I thought I made a good decision buying it but now you have me really sold. I'm only half way through the thread, just had to stop and tell you of my amazement.

Thanks again

Edit: Ok I read the whole thing and it looks like I want an EF 50mm 1.8 in the near future as my first lens.

I also can't get enough good advice from Ben Mathis, I have read the first few posts on your photo blog a couple months back , of course very inspiring to see your success follow to the camera.

Japhir

02-19-2011, 06:57 AM

Xoliul

02-19-2011, 08:32 AM

I'd get the 50mm straight away unless you really wanna watch your money. I've really enjoyed bringing my camera along with that lens to social activities like a concert, when we go drinking in a bar or whatever. Makes for some fun conversation most of the time, I get to practice difficult low light with it and I always end up with some nice pictures for facebook that are way above the average level of snapshots. Quite a few people have picked new profile pictures out of shots I took for example :p
Anyway just trying to point out why I think that lens is fun, it makes me try photographing people, something I never considered before.

EarthQuake

02-19-2011, 09:34 AM

Thank you so much for all the advice given!

So today i did it, turned out differnt than i expected because the store guy gave me some advice as well. What i got now is:

Canon EOS 1000D with a zoom lens: EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6. I asked him about the 50mm lens (they had it for 129 euros) but he told me that'd be a good option, but because you only have that set mm thingie it'd be better to buy a zoom lens first (even though it has a less good f value) so i could first experience what kind of pictures i like taking.

You definitely want a 50mm to start with, hell, I think you should return that 18-200mm. How much did you spend on it? You can likely buy 2-3 good used prime lenses instead. A zoom like that is a only really a good choice for someone who wants casual use, and isn't ever going to take the time to learn much about photography, just wants an "easy" lens.

The ONLY thing it gives you is added convenience.

Zooms are:
Slower, and have variable apertures
Not as sharp
Have less contrast
Have more chromatic aberrations and other defects
Have more barrel distortion

Unless you've got a $1000+ L series zoom or something, a couple prime lenses will beat the shit out a zoom. I dont think its a bad idea to have a zoom to learn the focal ranges you'll need, but that 18-200mm lens is what, $400 or more? Its just way to much to pay for a mediocre zoom lens, pretty much anything with that much zoom range has to make serious compromises to image quality.

If you really want something with a massive amount of range, get a older used Tamron 28-200mm, which you can find on bay or like $90. You'll be using either lens to simply figure out which ranges you like to use, and get a better prime or zoom lens anyway, it may as well be a cheap lens.

If you're dead set on getting a zoom, take a look at these, which all should be cheaper, and offering less zoom range; will offer better image quality.

Canon EF 24-85mm 3.5-4.5, $160-250 used, 24mm is pretty wide on a digital crop, certaily wide enough for 99% of uses, and it goes out to a 85mm "portrait" type range. This is a good walk around general purpose lens if you dont need the longer telephoto ranges, but most likely you dont really.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-24-85mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Canon EF 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 $140-200 used, similar to the above, this has a little less wide and a little more on the long end. You need to get the earlier version of this lens however, as newer shitier versions have been made.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-28-105mm-f-3.5-4.5-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Canon EF 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 $225-300 used, a bit more range on the long end again and IS feature as well, 135mm on a crop body will actually give you a very good amount of reach. A little slower on the back end, however the IS more than makes up for it. This is one of the best general purpose zooms you can buy, without going nuts on the price.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-135mm.htm

Each of these are:
Reasonably affordable for what you get
Have more reasonable ranges, resulting in better IQ
Have much better build quality, and full time manual focus(i think all 3 have it) which means you can easily just turn the focus ring for focus tweaks without changing the switch on the lens from AF to M, which may not seem like that big a deal, but its nice.

200mm on a crop = 320mm, which is just really excessive in a standard zoom unless you have some specific need for it.

18mm is really wide, and actually quite a difficult range to master, I dont think its essential to go that wide on your "standard zoom" as you wont really use it all that much. For peanuts you can pick up the kit 18-55mm II($60) or the 18-55mm IS($90) that will give you that range for the 1% of the time you really need it.

At the end of the day, a fixed 50mm lens will force you to move around to recompose your shots, letting you explore angles you otherwise wouldn't have and teaching you a very valuable lesson to not just sit still and twiddle your zoom all day.

Japhir

02-19-2011, 10:45 AM

Hmm you're making some valid points there by the looks of it... crap! :P. I got it for 459 euros (~628$ :O). Especially your argument about moving around to make good photo's in stead of standing still seems valid, even though i'm a lazy ass :P.

Crap! You made me actually consider returning it next monday... evil you! :P.
On a serious not though, thank you so much for takig the time to write all this stuff out for me and the rest of the pc community :).

EarthQuake

02-19-2011, 10:50 AM

What you can get for $628 USD used off of ebay, I know you'de pay more in shipping + VAT or whatever, but still:

Canon EF 28mm 2.8 $180 - wide
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-28mm-f-2.8-Lens-Review.aspx
Canon EF 50mm 1.8 $70-80, or $100 new - normal
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f18.htm
Canon EF 85mm 1.8 $350 - portrait/short tele(~135mm on crop). OR Canon EF 100mm 2.0(160mm) for the same price
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/85mm.htm
----
$630 USD ^^ awesomesauce kit

You'll notice these primes cover a similar range to the zooms I recommended above, because this range will cover 95% of your actual photography use, unless you're going to be taking mainly super wide architectural or landscape shots, or need a super long tele for bird watching or something like that.

Grab some cheap ass zooms later to cover the more exotic wide/tele ranges.

Entity

02-19-2011, 08:23 PM

disanski

02-20-2011, 02:24 AM

When i was on a olympus system then even the cheap zoom lens were doing food job. I believe everything else you would need to spend a lot of money on a zoom lens in order to be able to compare the results with a prime lens.

I already recommended the 50mm 1.8 earlier and it could be even back in this thread. Why is it so good ?
Because it is actually very difficult to use it but that makes you think so much more. I cant even describe how much this has changed my photography.
First lets face it shooting wide open it is not easy - at least for me :) so you will learn one way or the other what to do and what not to do. Second you will have to move with your feet in order to get better frame which somehow makes you understand what you are looking for in that photograph. It will also let you explore different angles that may be would not happen if you had a zoom lens.
Also last but not least it is still one of the best lenses out there and not even because it is so cheap .. i did not do a test but from just looking at my pictures taken with 50mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.8 they are the same to me :)
Go for it you will only be happy about it :)

Zpanzer

02-20-2011, 02:52 AM

I just got my 24mm f/2.8 and I loooooooooooove it! Not that expensive and is a bit more versital when walking around with it compared to the 50mm on a digital crop! I've read somewhere it should have some chromatic abberation problems, but I haven't found them so far and it's super sharp past f/4.

I think I love it more then my 50mm <3

Playdo

02-20-2011, 07:22 AM

@Disanki: Could be a calibration issue. There are other variables such as AF accuracy in low light / the lenses used / the AF points used.

Btw Earthquake, there's no AF microadjustment on the original 5D. Canon didn't implement it til 50D, 5D Mk2 and the 1D/Ds Mk3.

@Japhir: I only ever listen to salesmen if I've done my research :)

disanski

02-20-2011, 08:37 AM

Yep it could be.... could be anything. It is most likely me :)
Yep there is no microadjustment on 5d classic.

EarthQuake

02-20-2011, 12:49 PM

Tamron 28-70 is a very solid zoom lens, provided you get the non-motor version (which is long discontinued I think?)

Not sure how it'll perform on your 1000d though..no built in motor (correct me if I'm wrong)

Do you mean the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8? FYI, all AF lenses on canon need in-lens motor focusing. 28-75mm isn't a particularly great range, but its not bad I guess, and a 2.8 zoom for ~$300 is actually a pretty awesome price, when you consider the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L sells for $1000+, and the sigma 24-70mm 2.8 sells for $650.

Still, a Canon 28mm 2.8 + 50mm 1.8 would cover a similar range(sure you're missing out on ~35mm and ~75mm) and be faster/sharper, for the same price.

Xoliul

02-20-2011, 04:03 PM

Just bought a Sigma 24mm 1.8 on eBay, to use alongside the 50. Gotta stop the spending a bit now, even though 300 seems like a decent price. Damn you EQ and your convincing advice!

EarthQuake

02-20-2011, 04:35 PM

24mm is nice, and 1.8 is great speed for that lens, if its anything like my 30mm 1.4 i'm sure you'll love it. Eventually I think i'll get a 20 or 24mm for the wide end, but for now 30mm is wide enough for most of my uses.

These ultra wides(well 24 isn't technically one) have such large depth of field that I find them difficult to use, I guess I rely way too much on bokeh, and have a lot to learn about proper composition!

Japhir

02-21-2011, 07:32 AM

So today I went back to the store, and found out they don't return money, only value checks. I thought that was understandable, but had to make a decision: keep my 1000D, change the lens for a 50mm 1.8 and get an extra 28mm 2.8 already OR change everything (except for memory card and bag etc.) for a 550D and a 50mm 1.8, then get the 28mm later. The latter is the option I decided upoon, because I felt this would grant me time to really get to know this lens before buying a second one, and now I have a better body with film function :). The poor salesman had to pack everything up again :P.

So now i have: Canon 550D body with canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens. Yay!

Thank you all for your advice, and expect some pictures in the post one picture thread (and maybe a pic of my cat for EQ's bd thread when i'm at my parents' again).

edit: oh, and I still have like 50 euros left as a value check, which i can use for the 28mm when the time comes.

Entity

02-21-2011, 08:50 AM

You made the right choice :) I can guarantee you'll be picking up a wide lens, but enjoy the 50 (and treat it with care, those things fall apart pretty easily :P)

EarthQuake

02-21-2011, 09:19 AM

So now i have: Canon 550D body with canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens. Yay!

Yay indeed! This is a much better kit. You'll have fun with the video stuff. With the 1000D you'd probably be yearning for an upgrade in 1-2 years, which is a shame if you're buying new, the 550D has pretty much every feature on some level that the highest end Canon's have, there really isn't much separating it from the $1800 7D aside from ergonomics, so it should last you a good deal longer.

edit: oh, and I still have like 50 euros left as a value check, which i can use for the 28mm when the time comes.Remember to check out the used market for this, you may save $100-200 euros by buying this used online, instead of in a retail store, in which case you can use that 50 euros for a tripod or a camera bag.

disanski

02-21-2011, 10:24 AM

Great decision:) I feel so comfortable having those couple of threads about cameras here on Polycount! When I said this what other forums about photography do you guys visit?

http://35photo.ru/

this is a Russian site and for me is the best one out there especially if wee are talking about portraits. I do understand a bit of russian but it is all pictures any way :) so dont let that spoil it for you.

EarthQuake

02-21-2011, 11:14 AM

disanski, thats funny and i've been meaning to ask where you're from, because your photos have a distinct eastern bloc feel to them! =D

I dont really visit and photography forums specifically, I spend more time researching gear than anything, for the stuff I buy/sell on ebay.

And for that;
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/
http://www.kenrockwell.com/

Anyone want a Zuiko 18mm 3.5? Only $1000.....

Xoliul

02-21-2011, 12:04 PM

disanski

02-21-2011, 12:16 PM

:) No thank you.. is it supposed to be much more expensive?
I am from Bulgaria.
After I learned what lens is for what and I found out what camera do I want I dont really care about the new or old lens out there. I am not really going to spend any more money on anything except may be 85 mm 1.8 :)
About my photographs I am trying to find my own style and I will probably try to emphasize on the eastern feeling a bit more in my future photographs... once I find time :)
Edit : I know what you mean Xoliul :) I go to a Bulgarian forum for the gear part myself and there a lot of those but- kissing people there as well but if i have to be honest some of the big photographers here have very strong influence on me :) Also they often organize workshops which is great because most of the time there is a big company like sony or nikon spending hips of money for advertising so it turns out very very cheap :)

EarthQuake

02-21-2011, 12:29 PM

Blaizer

02-21-2011, 02:58 PM

Hey guys, did you know http://cameralabs.com/ ?

Plenty of reviews there.

EarthQuake

02-21-2011, 06:05 PM

Oh also, another thing with Rockwell, he has a shit ton of reviews, and generally has a writeup for every lens that i'm looking into buying. As well as the ones I already have, which makes it very relatable when looking for gear if he has a write up on it.

Blaizer: any particular reason you like that site? IMO for cameras and camera bodies, www.dpreview.com is the best possible place. Most indepth reviews I've ever seen.

Ark

02-22-2011, 05:41 AM

Anyone have an opinion on the d7000? Been looking to get into photography, but the amount of different cameras is kinda mind boggling.

Mainly to do low light stuff in general.

Entity

02-22-2011, 06:48 AM

you'll want a fullframe camera for really low light stuff, which would be the awesome D700 (not the D7000)

Xoliul

02-22-2011, 07:17 AM

How come FX is better than DX format for low light? Just noise performance? Seems to be pretty good on the D7000, which I thought is an awesome camera already? I wouldn't buy it as my first thought, a bit pricey for being a first DSLR imo. I would definitely consider it as an upgrade though.

Entity

02-22-2011, 07:29 AM

FX cameras have bigger sensors (same size as 35mm film), which means bigger pixels. Bigger pixels = more light gathered. It's the reason why megapixels are overrated, especially in smaller sensors.

EarthQuake

02-22-2011, 08:46 AM

Fullframe is going to be better than a crop body for low light, however, switching from a cheap compact camera, to a proper slr(read: virtually any dslr) and a fast lens, is going to give you muchhhhh better low light performance.

ISO 1600 on my DSLR is comparable to ISO 400 on my compact, and my lens is about a stop faster, so I can do lowlight in roughly 8x less light with my dSLR. And this is a Canon 350D from about 8 years ago, if you can find something with good ISO 3200, and usable 6400, you'll be set.

So what does it all mean? You dont need to fork over $1000+ on a full frame body, any midrange dSLR is going to give you excellent low light performance coming from a compact camera.

Also, remember this!!! If you want to do lowlight, the most important thing is a fast lens, sure you can pay 5x on a camera body to get a 3 stop improvement in noise performance, however, if you're using that camera with a slow zoom lens, you've just lost that 3 stop improvement over even the cheap 50mm 1.8.

disanski

02-22-2011, 11:21 AM

And something else : D7000 it is supposed to be excellent camera and there is nothing bad to jump on it if you have the money :) not sure how much of it you will appreciate if it is your first dslr but why not. Just make sure you have enough money for a good lens because this is a new camera with many many pixels on a small sensor and not like any other camera this require a very good and expensive lens :) I read this somewhere :) never seen this camera :)

EarthQuake

02-22-2011, 12:54 PM

Yeah, as we get more and more MP in cameras, and quality MP, not just more noise, the lens becomes a serious limitation, because if your camera shoots 20mp, but your lens only resolves 9MP worth of detail, its not worth it to spend so much on an expensive camera....

Also, who the hell needs 16mp(D7000) or 21mp(5D Mark II)?!?

Ark

02-22-2011, 01:44 PM

Thanks for the sound advice, gonna do a little more research to see what will suit my needs. Like you say i don't wanna jump in the deep end just yet with a full-frame camera, being such a novice, but i don't wanna go the opposite and get something thats cheap and doesn't suit my needs then end up changing the body a few months later.

Also one more novice question, would shallow DOF be a problem shooting at F/1.8 50mm or is this only the case with long focal lengths?

Xoliul

02-22-2011, 01:51 PM

yeah shallow DOF is a bit difficult to control at 1.8 on a 50 as far as I noticed, mostly because it's very hard to judge focus on the viewfinder.

disanski

02-22-2011, 01:58 PM

It is just a bit tricky at first :) there is no problem even at lower f stop. You just need to be extra careful because if you are doing a head shot it will make difference if you focus on the eye or the nose :) and you also can't recompose .. not sure for the correct word for this but when you set your focus point, focus on something that you want to be in focus and then move your camera slightly in order to frame your subject better. I use to do this all the time when i was shooting with slower lens at f/4 and when i started with the 50mm 1.8 all of my pictures were mess. I was even afraid my camera was being a **** :)

Japhir

02-22-2011, 02:04 PM

disanski: you can actually "recompose", (don't know if it's the correct word either ;)). In your camera settings you can set the AF to "one shot" or "AI Servo". (and there's a third middle option which doesn't make sense to me yet).
The one shot setting auto focusses once, when you half-press the shutter button, and the ai servo setting keeps autofocussing while half-pressing the shutter button.

I've been having lots of fun already, even though i only took some pictures indoors so far. I have a feeling I generally already know what DOF and exposure time i must set it to to get clean results, and am still experimenting with the white balance settings and the ISO thingie.

EDIT: oh wait, now that I reread your reply it seems like you're saying it will be out of focus because it's sooo sensitive, rather than saying you can't keep it focused. Sorry for sounding all smart-ass like (A).

EarthQuake

02-22-2011, 02:10 PM

Disanski: One thing i've started to do when I re-compose, esp with the 30mm 1.4 close up, is to "pan" instead of "rotate" to recompose, this will generally ensure that your focus point stays more accurate, but yeah with fast lenses, even a slight movement can mess up the focal plane. I always shoot in continuous with these type of shots, and fire off 3 frames or so and pick the best one later, because even a slight tilt in your posture can affect focus as well =)

disanski

02-22-2011, 02:11 PM

Hheh yep that is what i had in mind. You can do it but you have to be extra careful and think about the focusing plane because it is very very sensitive at a wide aperture (even angle wise if you can imagine) it :) I learned this the hard way taking so many pictures and the result was ... damn :)
edit :P I just saw your post EQ
yep this is the way I try to do it as well but still not very consistent results so I only use it when i dont care so much about the focus cause I know it might not be there :) This is the one lilmitation of not having enough AF points on my old camera :) and i would not care so much if it was not that I want to take shots and compose them at the time of the shooting with no need of cropping when I get back home and now i have to consider the AF point as well and you can imagine how big the viewfinder is on the full frame and the AF points are just being spread near the center :)
Edit 2 :) I just got set of reflectors similar to those
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/358608-REG/Impact_R1142_5_in_1_Reflector_Disc.html

and I have a model for Thursday afternoon :)

Blaizer

02-22-2011, 05:33 PM

Blaizer: any particular reason you like that site? IMO for cameras and camera bodies, www.dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com) is the best possible place. Most indepth reviews I've ever seen.

It's just another great site for camera and lenses reviews, clear info with videos, picture samples, etc. They also compare you the models they review with other brand models with similar specifications.

Ark

02-23-2011, 10:05 AM

So i think im gonna go for the cheaper and older D90 with a 50mm 1.4G prime lens. Doesn't seem that different from the D7000 apart from a few features, yet the D90 is half the price.
Is it worth bothering getting the cheap 18 -105 zoom lens with it, or should i put this extra cash towards another prime lens?

Entity

02-23-2011, 10:55 AM

I would not recommend getting the 50/1.4G, it focuses slower than the older version and doesn't perform as good as the cheap 1.8

If you want a really good 50/1.4, I'd go with Sigma's version. Very sharp even wide open and the bokeh is creamy.

disanski

02-23-2011, 12:12 PM

I think this is a good decision. The d90 is not as good as the d7000 by many features but I believe d90 is a better camera for a start and I use to have one and it is not bad at all :) It fits so damn well in the hand.
I dont know nothing about the 18-105 .... prime lens just feel so much better to me :)
I had the 50mm 1.8 and it was great lens just fantastic I could not believe it :)
I think the post one nice picture thread is going to rapidly grow :)

EarthQuake

02-23-2011, 12:16 PM

Yeah, instead of the 50/1.4 I would get the cheap 50/1.8, and the cheap 35/1.8 or the 28mm 2.8, its possible you could get all 3 for near the price of the 50/1.4

50/1.8 $100
35/1.8 $190
28/2.8 $150
USED = $440

50/1.4 $350-450 new
$200-300 used

Something to think about =D

28/2.8 $150
50/1.8 $100
85/1.8 $300

^ Would also be a nice kit, I think i'd opt for the 85mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.4, as the 85mm will have better bokeh.

The thing with both the Nikon and Canon 50mm 1.4 lenses is, they're only marginally better than the 1.8 counterparts, but cost 3x more to buy, so its a bad choice for a beginner, or really most people in general, unless you really need what the lens does better. Which would be a little sharper at 2.0, a little better bokeh, and a hair faster.

EarthQuake

02-23-2011, 12:53 PM

poopinmymouth

02-23-2011, 02:35 PM

Hah, you're open to Ken Rockwell, EQ? Opinions over him are divided apparently, interesting to see that someone with an often strong opinion like you is not in the KR hater camp :p
I've been going to his site a lot ever since I started looking into gear, always very clear and well researched. Though I have to agree his own photo's aren't that special...

Anyway, we have a big belgian forum, but I only tend to go there to check the sales part, seems too full of amateurs and people butt-kissing each other :p

I have never read a helpful Ken Rockwell review. He is either republishing press releases verbatim, or when he does offer opinion, it's either horribly wrong, or outright crazy.

Anyone who shoots jpeg only with saturation at the maximum has questionable opinions.

An example. His opinion of the new Fuji x100:

Forget the Fuji Finepix X100. I just looked at this sample gallery, and the images are soft, low-contrast, lower resolution, and boring compared to my D7000, much less the full-resolution samples I share in my new Route 66 Gallery from a LEICA M9. Who are Fuji trying to kid; children who think iPhones are cool? I love Fuji — Fuji Velvia 50! Now that's photography! When you can get this from a Fuji digital camera, wake me up.

The x100 looks like it is going to be the best aps-c sensor put out so far. It has useable ISO 6400, incredible dynamic range even in jpegs (that's what he is mistakingly labeling "low contrast"), and offers the first large sensor experience in a small body WITH an optical viewfinder. Bonus with manual shutter and aperture dials. In fact it's funny he mentions the d700 because a Norwegian reviewer briefly had head to head images from the d7000 vs the X100 before Fuji asked them to remove them, and they were as sharp despite having 6 megapixels less, but showed lower noise and higher dynamic range at those high ISOs (dark tones were still clearly discernible on the x100 but had bled into black on the d7000)

I'm planning to get one, have researched it well, and his thoughts on it are directly counter to reality as someone knowledgeable on gear would be.

poopinmymouth

02-23-2011, 02:37 PM

Oh also, the way lenses work, you can get sharper shots the wider the lens is with the same amount of light and shutter speed, the longer a lens is the more its prone to "motion blur" from small movements of the camera. So in reality, the 35mm 1.8 isn't much slower than the 50mm 1.4, and 35mm on a crop body is a better general purpose lens. So getting the 35/1.8 for general purpose, and the 50mm/1.8 for portraits isnt a bad idea.

To explain this further:

On a 50mm on a full frame for most people is handholdable at 1/50 of a second. On a crop body since it shows an 85ish field of view you need more like 1/80th.

This means a 30mm needs 1/30 on ff or 1/50 on a crop.

poopinmymouth

02-23-2011, 02:50 PM

Just a heads up for anyone in the market for a camera in the near future. Pay very close attention to the new Fuji X100. www.finepix-x100.com

Pros:
APS-c sized sensor (think 60d, d7000, Nex, etc)
450 gram small body, it's smaller than any DSLR
metal body, manual dials for aperture and shutter
syncs with flash at 1/1,000 at f/2 (no camera ever before could do this) and 1/4,000 at f/8 (also never done before)
ultra sharp f/2 35mm equivalent lens (with 9 aperture blades, this makes smoother out of focus areas, most cheapo lenses have 5-7, and nice lenses 9-11)
Optical viewfinder that can project a HUD with details OR an actual live feed from the sensor, it's a hybrid OVF/EVF
built in 3 stop ND filter, meaning you can actually shoot at f/2 in broad daylight if you want to isolate your subject with a blurry background.
incredible ISO performance. ISO 6400 looks like ISO 1600 on my 5D original.
Comes with silkypix, not a crappy proprietary editor that no one uses. Silkypix is kind of a poor man's lightroom, but it has all the same functionality and is much nicer than DPP or the other first party editors.
Can do motion panoramas like the Sony Nex cameras. (hold down the button and slowly pan, it stitches them together in camera) bonus built in electronic level.
Quick wake time, .01 second shutter lag, and fast AF

Cons:
Not out yet (grrr) coming mid-to-late March
1,200 USD
Fixed lens. It's 35mm field of view (no changing of lenses)

If you like the 35mm fov (it's my personal favorite) this camera is going to be killer. Tiny, light, no image quality sacrifices. I know for sure it will be used far more than my 5D and I am even pondering selling my 5D at this point. I use 35mm more than any other lens, and I hate how my 5D with a quality 35mm lens is 1.5 kilos and the size of a lunchbox.

I'll be posting a review when I get mine, but I am ultra stoked.

3devo

02-23-2011, 03:12 PM

x100 does look pretty damn sweet.
Am i right in thinking that it supposed to operate in a more rangefinder kind of way?

Ark

02-23-2011, 03:35 PM

Thanks a lot again gents for the info.

EQ: Unfortunately those prices you listed translate as a 1:1 from $ to £.

I've found amazon to be the cheapest here in the UK. Still nowhere near US prices though. :( Unless someone knows anywhere better, that would be great.

50mm f1.8 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-50mm-F1-8D-Nikkor-Lens/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298499267&sr=8-1

35mm f1.8 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-DX-35mm-f1-8G/dp/B001S2PPT0/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1298499295&sr=8-5

28mm f2.8 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-28mm-F2-8D-Nikkor-Lens/dp/B00005LE71/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1298499295&sr=8-9

85mm f1.8 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-85Mm-F1-8D-Nikkor-Lens/dp/B00005LE75/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1298499349&sr=8-2

I could get the 50 and 28 or the 50 and 35 and then see where i can go from there.

EarthQuake

02-23-2011, 04:12 PM

Looking at used lenses on ebay( .co.uk! ), to see for yourself, log in to ebay(create an account if you dont have one) and then search for "completed listings" you'll see what stuff is actually selling for.
It looks like this is what stuff is selling for:

28mm 2.8 £75-135
35mm 1.8 £100-150
50mm 1.8 £70-85
85mm 1.8 £175-250

I'm not sure how affordable/unaffordable those prices are, but it looks like most are a decent % less than amazon, and any other retail you'll find i'm sure.

You're buying used from eBay, but there is nothing wrong with that. Just try to find a listing that seems legit, has good detailed photos of the item, and seems like its being sold by someone who knows cameras. On top of this the best thing to remember about ebay is:

The buyer is always right! If you buy something listed as in good working condition, get it, and it is NOT, it does not matter if the seller says "as is" or "no returns" or if they refuse to give you your money back. All you do is file a claim with ebay and tell them the item is "Not as described" and as long as that is true, ebay will force the seller to refund your entire cost + shipping and in some cases even pay for your return shipping. I know this all too well as an eBay seller. 99.9% of the time a buyer has a legitimate case, ebay will side with you, and not the seller.

I could get the 50 and 28 or the 50 and 35 and then see where i can go from there.

The 28mm and 50mm will provide more range, and is a very good starting kit(what I started with) however the 35mm is such a nice lens on a crop body, and at 1.8, its hard not to recommend, however 35+50mm is a pretty limited range.

Xoliul

02-23-2011, 04:12 PM

I think EQ's talking used, which should be cheaper than new on Amazon.

Blaizer

02-23-2011, 04:28 PM

you better use these cameras almost all the days!!! 1200 dollars for that fuji is way too expensive, with that money i update 2 computers with i7 2600k :S

prices are very very expensive.. and for those lenses, cough cough

I'm aiming towards a cheaper nikon d5000 but the new canon eos 600 will make 500 cheaper!

EarthQuake

02-23-2011, 04:44 PM

I have never read a helpful Ken Rockwell review. He is either republishing press releases verbatim, or when he does offer opinion, it's either horribly wrong, or outright crazy.

Anyone who shoots jpeg only with saturation at the maximum has questionable opinions.

I dont really pay attention to his camera reviews, mostly just the lenses. He has reviews for most of Canon and Nikon's standard primes, so its good to read in that you can compare his thoughts on a particular lens to another, easily.

He does make some retarded claims of course, like saying you should only use medium format film if you want sharp images or whatever, clearly a bit of a nutter.

DPreview has such good camera reviews, why go anywhere else?

That Fuji looks slick, and if I was rich I would probably buy one, but I gotta think a better buy would be a Pana GF*, Oly EP*, or Sony Nex, as they're a lot cheaper, about the same size, come with similar pancake lens options, but also allow you to use... Virtually any 35mm lens ever made.... I've been thinking of a 43 format camera for a while to use with a rather larger pile of OM mount Zuikos, or some of those worthless FD and MD mount lenses, but can't really stomach the price just to play around with old MF lenses.

poopinmymouth

02-23-2011, 04:52 PM

x100 does look pretty damn sweet.
Am i right in thinking that it supposed to operate in a more rangefinder kind of way?

Sort of, it has an offset viewfinder that is glass but doesn't look through the lens, like a rangefinder, but the name rangefinder comes from the fact it uses two viewfinders and overlays them, like your eyes, to "find the range" of the focus. As you focus the lens that is mechanically rangefinder coupled like on a Leica M camera, the two images move until the subject you desire is overlapping. The X100 does not do this, it shows you an optical view, an AF square you can use for autofocus, and a framing line for framing that is parallax corrected, or a live feed from the sensor via an LCD projected onto a prism, but it's not a rangefinder in the technical sense.

you better use these cameras almost all the days!!! 1200 dollars for that fuji is way too expensive, with that money i update 2 computers with i7 2600k :S

prices are very very expensive.. and for those lenses, cough cough

I'm aiming towards a cheaper nikon d5000 but the new canon eos 600 will make 500 cheaper!

I could also buy 5 pallettes of Q-tips, or 5,000 bags of potato chips for 1,200 dollars. You could also not even put a downpayment on a house for that much. Why compare it to things it is not?

You meant to say that 1,200 is too expensive *for you* and what you want out of a camera. For me, I have the money to spend on it, and it fits my camera needs exactly, to the point I might sell my other gear which is worth more than the cost of the X100. If your only goal is to get the cheapest camera possible that isn't a point and shoot, buy a 1000d and a 50mm 1.8. Some of us have more needs than just cheap, and paying a bit more for that exact tool is worth it. This is the only small camera, with a large sensor, a good lens, and an optical viewfinder. For people who hate composing at arms length, or looking at a tiny electronic EVF, there is no solution other than lugging around a hefty DSLR, and that can get tiring. I don't buy and upgrade cameras like some people do telephones. I've used the same camera for 3 years now, and I have nothing smaller than a lunchbox to take photos with, and I'm not willing to sacrifice image quality to go with a point and shoot, and film is ludicrously expensive in Iceland to develop.

You can buy 5 generic aiptek tablets for the cost of an intuos, but plenty of artists say the quality and build and functionality of the intuos is worth the price premium. The same can be said about car models, power tools, furniture, glasses, speakers, etc etc.

Ark

02-23-2011, 04:57 PM

Checked Ebay and can't say i'm a fan of it tbh, but the prices are better.
After a little more searching around i can get the camera body, plus the 4 lenses brand new for around £1300 ($2100).

Don't know weather to go this route or just get the 28mm and 50mm to start.

poopinmymouth

02-23-2011, 04:58 PM

DPreview has such good camera reviews, why go anywhere else?

That Fuji looks slick, and if I was rich I would probably buy one, but I gotta think a better buy would be a Pana GF*, Oly EP*, or Sony Nex, as they're a lot cheaper, about the same size, come with similar pancake lens options, but also allow you to use... Virtually any 35mm lens ever made.... I've been thinking of a 43 format camera for a while to use with a rather larger pile of OM mount Zuikos, or some of those worthless FD and MD mount lenses, but can't really stomach the price just to play around with old MF lenses.

I dislike DPreviews reliance on jpegs. I think for camera reviews DXOmark is the best, with dpreview as an ancillary site. DXO measures the raw capabilities, with no lens in between, and normalizes it for print size, so it's directly comparable. I like slrgear.com for lens reviews with their great 3d blur charts and the fact they review lenses on both crop and full frame, and I like photozone.de to double down on lens reviews to be sure one site didn't just get a bad copy.

Panasonic GF1: shit high ISOs in comparison to the true APS-c cameras like x100, x1, and nex. Also no optical viewfinder.
Olympus EPs Same, shit high ISOs. Better than a P&S but way behind a dslr, also no optical viewfinder, and the add on electronic ones are unwieldy, make the camera just as expensive as the x100, and make it very awkward to put in a bag or pocket.
Nex comes close, it has the image quality, but the controls are too point and shoot-y, and again, no optical viewfinder. Also no good wide angle low light lenses. Even with being able to mount any lens, there is no good 35mm f/2 or faster equivalent. Go look for one, the only option is a 3k Leica lens.

If you really like 35mm, an optical viewfinder, and manual controls, nothing comes close. If any of those aspects you're ambivalent about, it won't make sense till the price comes down a lot on the used market a year or two from now.

This is the digital equivalent of the Hexar RF, a camera that still holds a cult following for being small, good, 35mm really nice lens, good autofocus, and an optical viewfinder. This design and spec sheet has already stood the test of time, this is just the digital version. The camera is going to do very, very well. Amazon has already pulled preordering 3x because they get too many and Fuji HQ has them pull it because they are unsure they can deliver that many for the first shipment.

EarthQuake

02-23-2011, 05:19 PM

poopinmymouth

02-23-2011, 05:29 PM

Yeah I'm not here to argue that pana/oly's are better, but certainly more flexible at a lower cost for someone who wants a compact dSLR. Also, you can get a EP1+17mm 2.8+EVF for $500 or less new, which is a pretty huge price difference.

Like I said, the X100 looks awesome, and certainly has some very attractive features, but I couldn't see myself getting one, unless I had a lot of excess cash. =) If I really wanted a compact dSLR, I would go the 43 route because of the flexibility of different lenses, and the price.

Now, i've been waiting for a camera like this for a long time, decent sized sensor, high quality fixed prime lens, all in a compact. I hope we see some copycats to this, I would love to see some lower cost compacts with fixed primes and decent sensors, for this sort of compact camera, for me, I wouldn't require it to match the image quality of a 5D, I think thats a bit excessive, again; i'm not planing on sticking to a fixed 35mm focal length for all of my shooting, so this would be compared to a compact P&S camera more than a full on SLR. I think a lot of people will likely feel the same way, I'm not here to piss in your cheerios, I'm sure it would be an excellent camera to have for someone who shoots mostly at 35mm anyway.

You shoot mostly with a 35mm/2, or was it the 35/1.4?

The 1.4. For me to compare a 450 gram camera that can fit in your jacket pocket to a still-1,000 dollar 5 year old body with a 1,200 dollar lens and find the X100 coming up either even or ahead in all areas (other than depth of field. It has the light gathering advantage with ISO 6400 and no mirror slap, but can't go from f/2 down to f/1.4) is very impressive.

I was more comparing the ep1 with the 20mm 1.7 and EVF which is the fair comparison, as 2.8 is a stop slower on a camera with an already lagging behind sensor.

I've just tried every way I can think of to get a smaller every day camera, but I'm not willing to sacrifice image quality from the 5D because it feels too toylike when the images are so inferior, and then I don't try to do any serious work with it. I've borrowed an s90, a g11, a gf1, an ep1, a small old film slr, and handled a Nex, and none of them do it for me. Nex comes closest, it has actual dynamic range, whereas the m4/3 sensors might be as sharp or noise free as some cheaper dslrs, but they have horrible dynamic range if you're interested in doing post-work. If there was a 35mm equiv f/2 Nex lens I'd already have it, but they are sticking with f/2.8 lenses, and they aren't even small to make up for it. (for instance the panasonic 20mm 1.7 is probably half the size and weight of the NEX 16mm 2.8)

There are rumors that if the X100 does well, they will come out with a 50mm version, and maybe even a changeable mount version in the future. that's what Konica did with the Hexar. They made the fixed 35mm version, it sold like hotcakes, and then they made the RF version that can take different lenses.

Between the m4/3, the Nex, the X1 and now the X100, I see a lot of the makers that can't compete with Nikon and Canon on dslrs, diversifying into niche cameras. some won't be interesting at all, and others will scratch your particular itch in a way no dslr could.

EarthQuake

02-23-2011, 05:48 PM

There are rumors that if the X100 does well, they will come out with a 50mm version, and maybe even a changeable mount version in the future. that's what Konica did with the Hexar. They made the fixed 35mm version, it sold like hotcakes, and then they made the RF version that can take different lenses.

This I would like to see, and frankly I'm pretty surprised they didn't just come out with an SLR right away. However, I guess its a good move to do something a bit different, instead of getting lost in the m43 crowd.

EarthQuake

02-23-2011, 05:54 PM

Checked Ebay and can't say i'm a fan of it tbh, but the prices are better.

Mastering eBay is essential to anyone buying photo gear. You can almost always buy a used lens for a good price, use it for a year or two, and then resell it for more than what you've paid for it(or break even at the worst) to upgrade to some other lens later, if you have the patience to do it.

After a little more searching around i can get the camera body, plus the 4 lenses brand new for around £1300 ($2100).

Don't know weather to go this route or just get the 28mm and 50mm to start.

That seems like a very steep price to pay to start, I think I would say go for the 28mm and 50mm, and decide if you really need anything more, likely those lenses will keep you pretty content for a while.

poopinmymouth

02-23-2011, 05:57 PM

This I would like to see, and frankly I'm pretty surprised they didn't just come out with an SLR right away. However, I guess its a good move to do something a bit different, instead of getting lost in the m43 crowd.

Arguably that's how they made this deliver such great quality in such a small size.

The microlenses are offset to match the rays of this particular lens. Basically no vignetting. Not possible to offset for every lens you could put on.

The backmost glass element is physically larger than a lens opening could be, which allows the rays to be much more perpendicular to the sensor, again making less vignetting.

It's hard to make a lens with autofocus, fast aperture AND cover a large sensor while keeping a small size. The Panasonic 20mm 1.7 is the only lens I can think of that is both faster in aperture, and similar size with autofocus, but it only has to cover a 4/3 sensor, and would probably not cover an aps-c. The lens on the x100 doesn't protrude out as far as the 20mm 1.7, the nex with 16mm, or the ep1 with 17mm. The only camera and lens with bigger than P&S sensor that is shorter from lens tip to back is the Leica X1, and that's because it's lens collapses inside the body, but then extends. (and it costs 2,000 dollars with no viewfinder, a full stop slower lens, and slow-ass AF)

From a marketing point of view, an interchangeable lens is a big R&D expensive. Much better to test the waters with a fixed lens design, establish a name, a design, work out the kinks and see what kind of units you can move, and THEN invest in a new lens line plus lens mount.

Blaizer

02-23-2011, 06:22 PM

poopinmymouth

02-23-2011, 06:53 PM

Yeah, it's expensive for me, that's too obvious that it does not need to be said.

I could buy the most expensive professional dslr, but what's the point buying something i will use randomly and just for some photos? (i'm not a professional photographer!) that's a wasted money! it's like to buy the lastest dual xeon workstation with 10 cores, "just because i have the money and i don't know what to do with it".

Another thing as example, is that too many people talk about megapixels are not important, but at the end, i'm sure they would like to have photos without too much noise, and bigger resolutions. When i see photos from real photographers, with professional equipment, i really would like to have the cameras to shoot those huge photos of 6732x8984pixels. For me, the standard 12 megapixels are not enough, and i also want fast shooting for action photos. But that's only my preference.

12 megapixels is all we amateurs need.

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/74503_456444537745_554122745_6091628_7591707_n.jpg

(original picture here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_chompers/5065163353/sizes/o/in/set-72157625069193615/

This is a 90x120cm print from my 5D, a 12.8mp camera. It's plenty sharp and looks great. I'll take a 12 megapixels good body like the 5D over an 18mp 7d or whatever the newest higher megapixel crop body will be. The 12 mp of the x100 (and 5D) have much less noise and more dynamic range than the higher megapixel cheaper dslrs.

You are contradicting yourself, saying you don't need to spend money on a professional DSLR, you just use it occasionally, but then saying you need many megapixels. Do you ever print? If not, you don't even need 2 megapixels, sharing on the web only needs tiny jpegs that any camera can make. If you do print, a good 8-12 mp camera will deliver all the quality you need at sizes an amateur can afford to print. What do you do that 12 mp is not enough? (other than zoom-in in photoshop and tut-tut to yourself that there isn't enough detail)

Plus, some of us, while still being amateurs, shoot a lot, and get a great deal of enjoyment out of it. I am not a professional chef, but I have a very expensive table top mixer, because I cook every day and it makes my life easier, lasts a long time, and brings me enjoyment. Photography is a great creative outlet for people, and even if it's a hobby, if you decide it's a large part of your life, a heavier expenditure can be justified. It's not wasted money to pay for high quality tools for a hobby you do a lot.

EarthQuake

02-23-2011, 08:59 PM

Also, what part of a camera with a fixed 35mm/2.0 lens that does good quality up to ISO 6400, mean it isn't good for action shots? =P

Entity

02-23-2011, 09:29 PM

yeah come on guys we don't buy a 50 inch hdtv and watch it 3 inches away. It's all about viewing distance, I've had billboards printed out from 10mpx files and they look just fine :)

disanski

02-23-2011, 10:36 PM

Same here 12 mpx seems enough for me. I still have not printed any of the photos from my 5d and i would second Ben about his feeling about the 5d vs any crop body with 20 mpx :)
Also what hobby is not expensive if you dive in it? My skiing gear still costs more than the stuff in my photography bag :)

poopinmymouth

02-24-2011, 02:28 AM

Also, what part of a camera with a fixed 35mm/2.0 lens that does good quality up to ISO 6400, mean it isn't good for action shots? =P

Well technically it could have too-slow-for-sports Autofocus, but so far it seems snappy. One cool mode it can do, is first, because it's contrast AF, you can move the AF square to anywhere on the screen (not just 9 points, 30 points, whatever), and it will project it on the optical viewfinder (a first), you can also change it's size. And second, it can be put in "hunt" mode, where it tries to bring the moving thing, no matter where it is in the frame, into focus. Kind of like a motion detector. If you are shooting from the hip on the street, and don't have time to bring it to your eye, and don't want to leave it in a hyperfocal distance, you can turn on this mode, and it will try to actively keep the most moving thing in focus.

Same here 12 mpx seems enough for me. I still have not printed any of the photos from my 5d and i would second Ben about his feeling about the 5d vs any crop body with 20 mpx :)
Also what hobby is not expensive if you dive in it? My skiing gear still costs more than the stuff in my photography bag :)

The odds are quite good that I've spent less on photography gear than most polycounters have on alcohol these past few years.

Now if you want to get expensive, start printing large! Each of these canvas prints has been around 180 USD. I think printing should be mandatory, there is nothing like holding an image in your hand, and you can take in all the details in a way even a high resolution monitor won't allow. It's a lot easier for sharing your work also. Larger countries have access to really good print services (mpix in the US) or one can buy a small printer for less than 100 bux that makes borderless 10x15cm/4x6inch prints. If you enjoy photography and have never printed your stuff, try it! Seriously it's addicting and will really let you appreciate your images in a way that's so hard to explain if you haven't held a well made print in your hand.

Plus, people put an importance on printed work. I have found that my friends and family and house-guests spend a lot more time enjoying my physical prints, especially the large canvas, or the ones I frame under glass with a museum light (both can be had for cheap at Ikea).

Even cheap prints from your local pharmacy are great. I think anyone who enjoys taking photos, but doesn't regularly print their work, is robbing themselves of a lot of fun.

Xoliul

02-24-2011, 03:00 AM

That's a good tip Ben, about the printing. I've considered it, but don't think I have photographs that warrant printing yet. Well maybe one or two, but my favorite wasn't even taken with my dslr yet, which makes me wanna hold back a bit on printing it haha.

Blaizer

02-24-2011, 04:21 AM

I'm not saying i need many megapixels, just that i rather prefer more than 12 megapixels if i'm going to pay 1000 euro for a kit of lenses and an entry body. With the canon eos 550 we have very good quality, 18 megapixels and not too much noise at higher iso levels compared to other camera bodies.

Imagine i take a good photo, and i want to sell it, it's always better to have more megapixels, you can crop and see all the details better. In macro photography that's something very useful. But as i said, being realistic, i would not pay a huge amount of money for more megapixels, more shooting speed, and less.. for a few improvements. More megapixels is always very convenient, just that.

And all this about megapixels is quite subjetive. I have friends working as photographers, and they always complain about bodys, shooting speeds, and resolutions.

Yeah, photography it's a very expensive hobby. But being an enthusiast, is common to buy better things, but don't forget camera bodies are always improving.. all years we have newer models with more quality. I prefer to start with a good and cheap body, and good lenses, and if i need more quality, in some more years i upgrade just the body.

Right now, the newer entry level cameras are like the semi-pro cameras of 2 years ago or less.

Entity

02-24-2011, 05:38 AM

The tricky thing about resolution, especially on smaller sensors is that it puts so much strain on the lenses, so unless you're packing some serious gear thes results will likely disappoint you. Besides resolving power, diffraction is also an issue as it kicks in about a stop or two earlier.

And dont even me started on the aa filters they user these days :(

poopinmymouth

02-24-2011, 06:54 AM

The tricky thing about resolution, especially on smaller sensors is that it puts so much strain on the lenses, so unless you're packing some serious gear thes results will likely disappoint you.

Yeah but this is the dslr thread (and we sometimes mention mirrorless cameras) all of which have large enough sensors to mostly avoid the "too much pixels crammed in" syndrome.

The key is to go for "good" pixels. A 12mp 5D original trumps practically every camera out there if your goal is image quality and a used one can be had for around 1,000 dollars. Cameras that can best it (and only by a very slight amount)
Nikon's full frame sensors (between 2,000-7,000 USD)
5D II (2,500) and only barely, and you need to shoot high ISO or print really large for it to be obvious, at ISO 400 or below and at A3 or smaller it would be imperceptible
Sony A900/850 (2,000-2,500) this is only if you print larger than A3
Leica S2 (30,000 USD for just the body, 6k per lens)
Medium format digital (10k-40k)

Or you could buy a cheap used 40D body and get the crop equivalent. Too many people are buying cheap new low end models for video features or high megapixels, and are losing out on actual image quality. A used 40D is a better buy than a 60D or 550D. A used D90 is a better buy than a d7000.

Anyone considering an actual DSLR should only look at the 40d, 5d original for canon, or the d90, d700 for Nikon, or the A850 for Sony (not sure what their good older crop body is).

Besides resolving power, diffraction is also an issue as it kicks in about a stop or two earlier.

To elaborate on this point, but to state it simply, let's pick a nice lens, the Canon 35mmL. On a crop sensor, it's sharpest aperture is around f/5.6-8. On a full frame camera, it's sharpest is at f/8-11. If your goal is to get a lot of stuff in focus for a landscape image, you are going to have sharper images at the really tiny apertures on a full frame camera than you will on a crop, and a crop sharper than a 4/3.

And dont even me started on the aa filters they user these days :(

M8 and M9 don't have an AA filter, and most nice cameras you can pay to have it removed, but I agree it's a pain. The x100 looks like it is coming with a weakish AA filter, so I hope this becomes a trend. I'll fix any moire in photoshop and gladly accept that as the tradeoff on 1 image in 100 for extra resolution in every shot I take.

Entity

02-24-2011, 07:08 AM

Yeah but this is the dslr thread (and we sometimes mention mirrorless cameras) all of which have large enough sensors to mostly avoid the "too much pixels crammed in" syndrome.

That was the case a few years back, but look at how much they're putting in APS-C cameras today. Anything above 15 is pushing it really.

M8 and M9 don't have an AA filter, and most nice cameras you can pay to have it removed, but I agree it's a pain. The x100 looks like it is coming with a weakish AA filter, so I hope this becomes a trend. I'll fix any moire in photoshop and gladly accept that as the tradeoff on 1 image in 100 for extra resolution in every shot I take.

Yep, moire rarely happens and when it does it's easily fixable. I've only had it happen twice with my M8 in the past 2 years I've used it.

EarthQuake

02-24-2011, 09:25 AM

Yeah but this is the dslr thread (and we sometimes mention mirrorless cameras) all of which have large enough sensors to mostly avoid the "too much pixels crammed in" syndrome.

The key is to go for "good" pixels. A 12mp 5D original trumps practically every camera out there if your goal is image quality and a used one can be had for around 1,000 dollars. Cameras that can best it (and only by a very slight amount)
Nikon's full frame sensors (between 2,000-7,000 USD)
5D II (2,500) and only barely, and you need to shoot high ISO or print really large for it to be obvious, at ISO 400 or below and at A3 or smaller it would be imperceptible
Sony A900/850 (2,000-2,500) this is only if you print larger than A3
Leica S2 (30,000 USD for just the body, 6k per lens)
Medium format digital (10k-40k)

Or you could buy a cheap used 40D body and get the crop equivalent. Too many people are buying cheap new low end models for video features or high megapixels, and are losing out on actual image quality. A used 40D is a better buy than a 60D or 550D. A used D90 is a better buy than a d7000.

Anyone considering an actual DSLR should only look at the 40d, 5d original for canon, or the d90, d700 for Nikon, or the A850 for Sony (not sure what their good older crop body is).
.

I think the main difference to your average user between something like the 40D and the 500D would be, the 40D has better build quality, ergonomics, some more pro-end features(af points, shooting speed, etc) and the 500D has video. Looking at that site you mentioned earlier(DxOMark) the sensors on both of these cameras are about even, the 40D rated marginally higher. But really doubtful that anyone but a pro-user would notice the difference in image quality, and that pro user would already have a 5D or something =P. In addition to that, the 7D/550D sensor ranks higher on that site as well than the 40D. Now I haven't actually done any scientific testing or much research into it, but its the site you recommend so I imagine its pretty accurate. =P

To me, I'm looking to upgrade my shity 350D to something cheapish that does video, because using a camera to me is all about fun, I dont care about megapixels, high end image quality comparisons are pretty moot, as even my 350D gets the job done in terms of IQ, and its one of the worst canon dSLRs you can buy, so even a 500D/550D would present a nice upgrade as far as IQ and noise production, even with much more pixels packed in the same sensor. So yeah, its about fun, and if i'm looking at a used 500D or 40D, the price on these cameras is pretty similar and i'de probably go for the one that does video, because i'de like to mess around with video, and the IQ is going to be negligible, as I dont really feel IQ or noise performance is something that is "holding me back" even with my 350D.

I'm also looking forward to ISO 3200/6400. So for me personally, more than analyzing the top end of IQ(which isn't relevant to my uses) or worrying about too many/too little pixels, I'd simply like to be able to do video, and shoot at higher ISO than my current body, even if that means more noise, because I'd prefer more noise to not being able to get a shot at all!

Its actually a little disappointing what canon's newer bodies are doing as far as noise performance, when you look at Pentax for instance, who is coming out with some really nice bodies with low noise... Oh well, pentax's lens lineup still sucks.

I think if you're real concerned about top end IQ, get a full frame, 5D or something, comparing image quality between crop sensors isn't really that fruitful, because none of them are particularly amazing, but virtually all will be good enough for the target market. But I think this is something you've been saying anyway, so its not meant as an "argument" or something.

poopinmymouth

02-24-2011, 10:06 AM

I think the main difference to your average user between something like the 40D and the 500D would be, the 40D has better build quality, ergonomics, some more pro-end features(af points, shooting speed, etc) and the 500D has video. Looking at that site you mentioned earlier(DxOMark) the sensors on both of these cameras are about even, the 40D rated marginally higher. But really doubtful that anyone but a pro-user would notice the difference in image quality, and that pro user would already have a 5D or something =P. In addition to that, the 7D/550D sensor ranks higher on that site as well than the 40D. Now I haven't actually done any scientific testing or much research into it, but its the site you recommend so I imagine its pretty accurate. =P

The point I was trying to make though, is you can get a used 40D for 200-300 less than a new 550D and much less than a 7D, but you get the build quality, and large viewfinder of the XXD line.

Buy into a higher tier at the same price by getting a used older one. That's what I did, picked up a 3rd hand 5D when everyone was buying 5D IIs. I have some friends that bought 7Ds at the same time at similar cost and I much prefer my choice for image quality and my usage.

Instead of a 550d, get a 40d. Instead of a 7D, get a 5D I, instead of a d7000, get a d90. Same price, but nicer camera.

poopinmymouth

02-24-2011, 10:10 AM

On video, I'm going to rant. I cannot count the number of friends that ask me for camera advice, then tack on "and with video". Every single one of those friends proceeds to ignore my advice, buy a newer low end body, do video for a month or less, then never touch it again and make only still images.

Photography is an easy access low effort creative outlet as a hobby. Videography requires quite a lot more effort and time. I think most people like the idea of video much more than actually doing it on a regular basis.

Obviously some people will actually use it a bit, but it limits you to only newish equipment, when really great used cameras can be had if you don't require video features. So think two, and even three times about if you will actually use the video features of a camera often and consistently.

Entity

02-24-2011, 10:13 AM

follow focus, stabilizers, shoulder rigs, lights...

Some of the things you need if you want to get quality out of your videos. That stuff ain't cheap :)

EarthQuake

02-24-2011, 10:25 AM

The point I was trying to make though, is you can get a used 40D for 200-300 less than a new 550D and much less than a 7D, but you get the build quality, and large viewfinder of the XXD line.

Buy into a higher tier at the same price by getting a used older one. That's what I did, picked up a 3rd hand 5D when everyone was buying 5D IIs. I have some friends that bought 7Ds at the same time at similar cost and I much prefer my choice for image quality and my usage.

Instead of a 550d, get a 40d. Instead of a 7D, get a 5D I, instead of a d7000, get a d90. Same price, but nicer camera.

Absolutely, about the only thing I think you should buy new is the ef 50 1.8, because it sells for the same used as new. =)

On video, I'm going to rant. I cannot count the number of friends that ask me for camera advice, then tack on "and with video". Every single one of those friends proceeds to ignore my advice, buy a newer low end body, do video for a month or less, then never touch it again and make only still images.

Photography is an easy access low effort creative outlet as a hobby. Videography requires quite a lot more effort and time. I think most people like the idea of video much more than actually doing it on a regular basis.

Obviously some people will actually use it a bit, but it limits you to only newish equipment, when really great used cameras can be had if you don't require video features. So think two, and even three times about if you will actually use the video features of a camera often and consistently.

Yeah, I do not have any delusions of cinematic grandeur, I fully expect it to be of limited real use, and understand that I like the "idea" more than actually having a real purpose for it. However, I still want to try it! The price point for a 40D vrs a 500D is about the same, and like I said I'd sacrifice ergonomics for higher ISO and video capability. While I regret not getting the 20D, and instead the 350D, because the price was so close and the 20D does... everything, better. I think the 500D actually has some better features over the 40D, instead of just being a trimed down sibling.

Again, a 500D provides a great upgrade to a 350D as well, and its not as if i'm unsure about what features I do/do not need in a camera. =P

In addition to that, I am fully capable of selling my gear and regaining most of the cost, a year later if I really do find the video capability worthless, so its completely worth it just to play around with.

If we look at it like this:

350D vs 40D
Liveview
Higher ISO(But not as high as 500D)
Better ergonomics

350D vs 500D
Liveview
Higher ISO
Video

These are the main things i'm looking at, everything else is moot. If I was making money doing photography the 40D would be the obvious choice, as the better ergonomics, and controls would make a more productive setup. However the 500D looks like a more "fun" setup, and I only shoot for fun, so....

follow focus, stabilizers, shoulder rigs, lights...

Some of the things you need if you want to get quality out of your videos. That stuff ain't cheap :)

I've been looking at some DYI type stuff for these sort of things, which I like to do(see: the tilt lenses i've hacked together) so again, this is another possibility to have some fun whipping some ghetto gear together. =)

Ark

02-24-2011, 11:53 AM

Thanks for the great advice, gonna see if i can get the camera this weekend with the 2 lenses suggested.

One last question if i may, how important is memory card speed? Is it only a factor when using video/continuous shooting?

EarthQuake

02-24-2011, 12:07 PM

More important for video/continuous I would say. I wouldn't buy the cheapest card on earth, but I also wouldn't worry about getting the fastest. My camera came with a sandisk extreme II 4gb CF card, which seems to be reasonably fast. No idea how it compares to modern cards. DSRLs have internal memory to buffer X amount of shots, so until you get over X amount, it shouldn't be an issue?

poopinmymouth

02-24-2011, 12:19 PM

For memory cards, when importing, do a copy only (don't do move). When done, eject the card and use your camera to format the card rather than deleting all.

This is the best way to make sure your card never corrupts images. It can still happen but is less likely than moving images, or using delete all.

disanski

02-24-2011, 12:30 PM

I think it is important to have a high speed memory card. Also the d90 is using sd card so it should be cheap enough :) Sometimes it is important but it still depends what kind of photography you are going after. My camera only takes 3 images per second and it has big buffer so for me it does not make a big difference and i am using a card that is not the fastest but i never had to wait for it so far .. :) ( I am only shooting portraits and my subjects dont move a lot ) :)

Ark

02-24-2011, 12:32 PM

Yeah i won't be doing any action shots, mainly portrait/landscape stuff, at least i think :)

disanski

02-24-2011, 12:51 PM

I have a question too .. as I said I dont know too much about the technical side of the cameras and computers and now that we are talking about memory cards ... I have 8 gb sandisk ultra 2 CF card 15 mb/s .
I had about 300 shots today and it took my computer 1 hour to download them... this is .. how to put it down .. not very fast ? :)
If it is 15 mb per second and one image is 12 mb it should take one second per image right? why was it doing it for hours? Is my camera connection to the computer too slow? Would it be faster if I get card reader?
I can't wait 1 hour for this :) I want my pictures damn you :)

poopinmymouth

02-24-2011, 12:59 PM

Camera USB ports are notoriously slow. Buy a cheap card reader and watch your speeds sore like an eagle.

disanski

02-24-2011, 01:07 PM

OK :) thanks this is really driving me crazy :)

Xoliul

02-24-2011, 01:36 PM

yeah copying through the camera is terrible. My CF got corrupted last time (my fault I guess, cheap knockoff CF), and I couldn't even read it anymore through the camera, came up as blank. When I used a reader I managed to save 95% of the pictures I took.

Tom Ellis

02-24-2011, 02:35 PM

Ok finally back in the market for a camera. My car needed a bunch of repairs last week which hit my wallet pretty hard.

I'm just browsing eBay at what's on offer and I have a few questions.

I'm looking at the 20D body, I can get it for like £120-£150 which is a lot less than I was expecting. Now, is this really going to be a good buy or should I really be going for the 40? I suppose I mean is the 20 genuinely a decent camera or is it just 'good for the price'? I'm not bothered about video, and live view isn't something I can see myself needing enough to pay extra for.

Getting the 20D would also leave me plenty of cash for lenses. I've got about £400 budgeted altogether.

Also, I notice a lot of people on eBay are asking the sellers how many shutter actions have taken place... is there a number I should watch out for? Most of the 20D's have done around 6-8000. What does this mean (obviously how many times the shutter has released, but I mean does this indicate possible need for repair etc).

Thanks for keeping this awesome thread alive!

EarthQuake

02-24-2011, 02:43 PM

I suppose I mean is the 20 genuinely a decent camera or is it just 'good for the price'? I'm not bothered about video, and live view isn't something I can see myself needing enough to pay extra for.

Getting the 20D would also leave me plenty of cash for lenses. I've got about £400 budgeted altogether.

The 20D is genuinely a great camera, excellent choice for a beginner, and being able to buy better lenses will have much more of an impact than a better body. Especially if you do not care about the things you mentioned. Its both a good camera, and a good camera for the money.

You can also easily swap it out in a year or three if you feel the need, so there isn't really a big reason to spend more now, when the 20D might be all you really need for a good while. If you feel the need for something better in the not too distant future, you'll be in a good situation because you A. spent so little on your 20D, and B. you'll be able to snag of one of todays more expensive cameras for a good used price, probably spending about the same/less than if you were to buy a "hot new" camera today.

Also, I notice a lot of people on eBay are asking the sellers how many shutter actions have taken place... is there a number I should watch out for? Most of the 20D's have done around 6-8000. What does this mean (obviously how many times the shutter has released, but I mean does this indicate possible need for repair etc).

Thanks for keeping this awesome thread alive!The 20D is rated for 100,000 shutter actuations I believe, maybe more? 6-8k is excellent.

disanski

02-24-2011, 02:44 PM

For your budget I think this is very good idea. The 20 d is a great camera :) About the shutter count on most cameras needs to be replaced near 100 000 but some are more and some are less. This is an old camera so I am assuming something like 30- 40 000 should be a ok number. Depending on how many images you take it might last you forever. I tend to take about 200 - 300 a week some weeks i dont have what to shoot so it is just an average number. I guess you can't know before you get your camera :)

poopinmymouth

02-24-2011, 03:12 PM

The 20D is genuinely a great camera, excellent choice for a beginner, and being able to buy better lenses will have much more of an impact than a better body. Especially if you do not care about the things you mentioned. Its both a good camera, and a good camera for the money.

Yep, 20D is nice, but the 40D is an upgrade. If you were only going to get a single lens and body and shoot for a while, if you can swing it, I'd get the 40d, but the 20d isn't way behind.

Also just wanted to put this here: http://www.smdsphotography.com/upload/f3b.jpg ISO 6400 crop from the x100

Tom Ellis

02-24-2011, 06:04 PM

Entity

02-24-2011, 09:27 PM

Also just wanted to put this here: http://www.smdsphotography.com/upload/f3b.jpg ISO 6400 crop from the x100

Dayum that ain't bad

Ark

02-27-2011, 02:55 PM

Zpanzer

02-27-2011, 03:12 PM

While I don't have any experience with Sony cameras, I have a few friends that has been shooting with them some time ago. One thing to remember thought is when buying a none Nikon/Canon body, you might find your self limited later on when you have a good library of lenses and Sony no longer offers you an upgrade. So watch out if you later down the road have to switch to Canon or Nikon.

Entity

02-27-2011, 05:46 PM

I wouldn't get too caught up with fancy features, notice how as you go up in the camera line you actually get less features :p In the end IQ and handling is all that matters :)

EarthQuake

02-27-2011, 08:36 PM

Still haven't been able to get to a shop yet to try the D90 out. Although on my searching i've now spotted the Sony A55 and think it would make a good alternative.
Anyone have any view's on the A55?

The thing that puts me off the Sony is it looks cheaply built compared to the D90. The other thing is the whole "buying into the system" motto. I know there's nowhere as many lenses for the Sony, compared to Canon and Nikon. Although Sony's equivalent lenses do look slightly cheaper money wise.

But the Sony seems to offer more features over the D90 for around the same price, but the Nikon seems to have better ISO and dynamic range, which is what i see more important for low light and HDR stuff.

One super huge, amazinly great thing about sony is this:

All those Minolta Maxxum AF lenses? Well maybe you've never even heard of them, but there is a good selection of old used Maxxum lenses, that can be had on the CHEAP people do not realize Sony bought Minolta, and Sony alpha dSLRs fully support these old Minolta lenses. So when looking at Sony bodies, consider that. Most sony lenses are rebranded Minolta designs.

For instance, you can buy a

Maxxum 50mm 1.4 used for $200-250
Maxxum 50mm 1.8 $40-70
Maxxum 28mm 2.8 $75-100
Maxxum 24mm 2.8 $160-185

And a variety of decent zooms, in the $50-200 range like:
28-85mm
100-200mm
70-210mm F4 "beercan"

So when thinking sony, think minolta! Along with a variety of 3rd party lenses listed for Minolta AF mount. Sony also has in-body image stabilization, which is nice. Minolta may not be Canon or Nikon, but they make quality lenses and are a step above 3rd party sigma/tamron/tokina/etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_AF

poopinmymouth

02-28-2011, 04:37 AM

One super huge, amazinly great thing about sony is this:

All those Minolta Maxxum AF lenses? Well maybe you've never even heard of them, but there is a good selection of old used Maxxum lenses, that can be had on the CHEAP people do not realize Sony bought Minolta, and Sony alpha dSLRs fully support these old Minolta lenses. So when looking at Sony bodies, consider that. Most sony lenses are rebranded Minolta designs.

For instance, you can buy a

Maxxum 50mm 1.4 used for $200-250
Maxxum 50mm 1.8 $40-70
Maxxum 28mm 2.8 $75-100
Maxxum 24mm 2.8 $160-185

And a variety of decent zooms, in the $50-200 range like:
28-85mm
100-200mm
70-210mm F4 "beercan"

So when thinking sony, think minolta! Along with a variety of 3rd party lenses listed for Minolta AF mount. Sony also has in-body image stabilization, which is nice. Minolta may not be Canon or Nikon, but they make quality lenses and are a step above 3rd party sigma/tamron/tokina/etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_AF

Sony also makes pretty amazing sensors. They even provide some of Nikon's sensors.

Japhir

02-28-2011, 08:14 AM

So do we provide picture-taking advice in this thread as well? :P. I've been making quite a few photo's last weekend, because I went on a small trip with a couple of friends.

Beginner questions:
-Do you usually set your ISO yourself (to like 100-200 during the day and 3600 in a dimly lit room) or do you leave it to auto?
-Do you take pictures primarily in M mode or do you also use the Av and Tv modes? (I know what they do, but was just wondering).
-How much editing do you usually do on the pc? (and do you adjust one picture, store the adjustments as an action and apply them to all similar pictures? or what are your tricks here?)

poopinmymouth

02-28-2011, 08:26 AM

All of this advice presupposes you have read and understood the book "understanding exposure" (a must read for anyone even remotely serious about photography)

My current camera doesn't have auto ISO, so I normally set it to where I think the general brightness should be, then see if I can keep the aperture and shutter speeds I want, and adjust ISO if needed.

I mainly take images in M mode with spot metering mode. Because I know what my subject is going to be and where I want to place it in the exposure zone wise. (this is not going to make sense if you haven't read the book)
I normally load all my raw files into lightroom, then go through all of them, starring the "keepers" as 1, or 2 if I think they are super good. Then I make lightroom hide all but those with 1 star, and I go in and edit them with rough settings, copying across similar photos when they can be reused. Then I go in and try to star only the really good ones with 2 stars, do final edits, then upload to flickr or facebook. I do further editing for the ones that go on my portfolio or will be printed, mostly in photoshop.

disanski

02-28-2011, 08:39 AM

I read the book "understanding exposure" few months back after Ben recommended it and now i think I am going to read it second time :) Fantastic read.
I dont use auto iso but if I am to shoot something fast and I dont have time to adjust everything for the next shot I use A mode but only if I know that my speed will not drop down bellow 1/60.
Also I do the same with lightroom and send the best images to PS where I play with the colors. If I think an image is really good and I have an idea where I want to go with it I might work on it for a full day :) Some of my images only take 20-30 min.

poopinmymouth

02-28-2011, 08:52 AM

I do however plan to give auto-ISO a whirl on my new X100. You set the maximum ISO you want allowed, and the minimum shutter speed it can go down to before bumping up again.

EarthQuake

02-28-2011, 10:20 AM

I shoot 98% in AV, using exposure compensation for more tricky situations, using M rarely only when I want some really specific settings, and same with shutter priority.

Outdoors:
ISO 100-200 sunny day
ISO 200-400 in the shade/shady/overcast day
ISO 400-800 later in the day/sunset
ISO 800-1600 night stuff

Indoors:
ISO 400 for well lit, good natural light
ISO 400-800 for meh lighting
ISO 1600 for poor lighting
ISO 1600 -1 or -2 EV for really bad lighting(no iso 3200 on my 350D =((( )

ISO 100-200 for anything where I have a tripod.

Of course this is all dependent on lens too, and these higher iso shots will be taken at f1.4/1.8

Ark

02-28-2011, 10:34 AM

One super huge, amazinly great thing about sony is this:

All those Minolta Maxxum AF lenses? Well maybe you've never even heard of them, but there is a good selection of old used Maxxum lenses, that can be had on the CHEAP people do not realize Sony bought Minolta, and Sony alpha dSLRs fully support these old Minolta lenses. So when looking at Sony bodies, consider that. Most sony lenses are rebranded Minolta designs.

For instance, you can buy a

Maxxum 50mm 1.4 used for $200-250
Maxxum 50mm 1.8 $40-70
Maxxum 28mm 2.8 $75-100
Maxxum 24mm 2.8 $160-185

And a variety of decent zooms, in the $50-200 range like:
28-85mm
100-200mm
70-210mm F4 "beercan"

So when thinking sony, think minolta! Along with a variety of 3rd party lenses listed for Minolta AF mount. Sony also has in-body image stabilization, which is nice. Minolta may not be Canon or Nikon, but they make quality lenses and are a step above 3rd party sigma/tamron/tokina/etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_AF

I did read that Sony had bought them, but didn't read enough into it. I didn't know the about the mounts being compatible.
Seems Sony have a good choice for lenses then, not what i originally expected. :)

EarthQuake

02-28-2011, 10:45 AM

Its still not as good as Nikon or Canon(which IMO has the best lens lineup), but its likely suitable. Some of those less common Maxxum lenses are hard to find and will demand a premium, but the most common, most useful like the 50mm 1.4 and the 28/24mm 2.8 can be easily found for good prices. Its a shame, the 35mm 2.0 and 1.4 seem much harder to find.

Depending on exactly the lenses you want to get it may/may not be a good idea. But it certainly isn't a terrible idea in general terms.

Rens

02-28-2011, 10:58 AM

I do not have much to add to what already been said.

Just that I shoot everything on M.
I hate it when my camera starts doing things I do not like. Specialy with following bugs, insects, bird ect, you do not want your shutterspeed to suddenly drop, or get weird exposures by having it on auto. Specialy keep it on M if you have a lighting value in your img you want to capture, you might need a heavier setting then your camera will give you.

If you do it alot on M, you develope a sense for your settings anyway.
I'm more of a try it out person, i wont meter, i just look at what the situation is and set my settings accordingly. Give it a shot, see how close my estimate was, and give it another click to finetune the setting.
I have to anyway, when you walk around it is all about estimating.

Some preferences of mine are,
-Keeping the ISO as low as possible, only if my other settings start to drop below prefered i start to bump it up. So start at a 100, see if you can get a clean result, and if needed start adding a bit.
-My shutter mostly not lower 125 when shooting from the hand.
-My F is mostly a variation of things, i like to keep this one low, and add my powers to the shutter speed so i dont have a bird blurring up the picture.

Another setting I like to use is, RAW + small quality jpg.
When skipping through photos in a folder, raw files can be a bit of a pain.
So i look at the jpg's to see which photo i like to keep or edit, write down some numbers and then go over to the raws.

edit//
If you do keep it on auto, you should look up which points your camera uses to calculate its settings with. Long time ago that i looked into this, but it can use multiple metering points for a total picture to balance it out, or you can grab the spotmetering point in the center, so when you point it at a bird in the sky, it does not try to compensate for the blue around the bird.

Entity

02-28-2011, 11:07 AM

Rens: Agreed, that's why I always recommend to my friends that they shoot film first. A 1 film 1 lens combo will pretty much make you a master with exposure, after that it's just a matter of thinking in stops. These days I don't even need a meter (and my M certainly doesn't have one either XD)

That said, having a fullframe camera has spoiled me a little :P ISO1600 is the new ISO200 for me, you can barely tell the difference between the too :)

Ark

02-28-2011, 01:20 PM

Shaffer

03-01-2011, 09:14 AM

I bought myself a Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 DL Macro Zoom for cheap on ebay, I guess there is an outside chance it won't work of my 20d but if so I can send it back. Chances seem pretty slim that it won't work but I guess these lenses had to be re-chipped by sigma to work with newer dslr's. Pretty sure that's why I got the deal.

I didn't really even care about getting a zoom right away but I figured it would be good to play around with. I'm going to buy EF 50mm 1.8 this week no matter what. People keep answering my wanted ad on craigslist and then not following through with selling me the damn lens.

I found this database of Canon lenses on a photog forum not sure if you guys have seen this.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406)

Thanks for the shooting tips I'm shooting in manual at all time right now, I figured that would be the best learning experience. I will have to try Av.

EarthQuake

03-01-2011, 09:35 AM

Shaffer, I was about to say just go to B&H and buy the 50mmm 1.8 new, but the price has jumped up for $95 when I bought it to $120. Sons of bitches. This sells for $80-120 used, so maybe $120 new isnt a bad price, its such a cheap(price and build quality) lens that I would rather just buy it new myself.

However, here is a little secret of mine, for anyone looking for the most common primes(Canon/Nikon 50mm 18/28mm 2.8 esp);

Look under the "film cameras" section on ebay. Usually you can find an older AF film body with the lens, and for a 50mm 1.8 + camera it might sell for $60-80. If you're like me you then resell the camera body for $30 or something, but not everyone has the time to do that. Even at 60-80 you're still getting a deal.

So, my sister in law wanted a nikon dSLR. I found her a D80 kit with the 18-55 and 55-200mm kit lenses, which will likely be sold to fund some other lens. I was reading the review on dpreview and found it curious that they were comparing the D80 to the 400D. When I look at the features, ergonomics and controls of the D80, I compare it more to the 40D than the 400D, but I guess at the time of release it was priced similar to the 400D.

I got the kit for $514 shipped. I also picked up a Nikon N4004 AF film camera with the 50mm 1.8 AF lens for $75 shipped. This lens tends to sell for $90-120 used and 120-150 new so i'm pretty happy. I'll sell the body for 20-30 and have a 50mm 1.8 for a net of about $55, yay.

Shaffer

03-01-2011, 09:38 AM

Thanks guys, appreciated as always.

What I think I'll do is eye eBay for a couple of weeks and just see how prices are for both the 20 and the 40, if an affordable 40d comes up that leaves me adequate lens money then I'll go for it. Otherwise, I'll happily grab a 20D.

Thanks again
See if you can find the body locally. If it's on craigslist you might be able to talk them down and actually see the camera in person to make sure it's a good deal. I think a lot of these cameras are bought and not used so there doesn't seem to be any shortage on the second hand market for the older cameras. I got mine off another forum I frequent, in the marketplace of almost any forum lies an unsold DSLR.

EarthQuake- You have the same mindset as me, I'm always scanning ebay for those gems. I have half of a Subaru impreza at my house because of this type of buying you speak of. Isn't it great to get sweet shit for cheap/free though? I feel bad for people who pay full price because almost everything I own I can't afford.

I was a pioneer of ebay though, I think I was one of the first 100,000 members when it was free and had a real community (97?). I really want that account back haha, I let it die once they started charging and I declared ebay "over", I was probably 14.

I think I might just get the 50mm at the store, it was $125 when I stopped at the local shop. Would probably be the only new lens I ever buy.

EarthQuake

03-01-2011, 09:40 AM

Oh also Shaffer, in regards to that sigma lens: It will most likely not work, you should be leery of any Sigma lenses for EF that are over 5 years old. Canon/Sigma are notorious for breaking compatibility with these lenses. Same goes for Quantaray.

I find Nikon/Pentax/Minolta/Sony have better compatibility with these third party lenses, for whatever reason.

Andreas

03-03-2011, 01:51 PM

I saw a 'Fuji 52750 12MP Bridge Camera' today going for 190 euros (on sale, apparently), so I came home to check it out online, but couldn't find a single mention of it on google. Anyone know why? Are Fuji cameras generally good enough? As a first time camera buyer, am I even going to notice half the things you guys discuss in this thread? :) It shoots 720P video, but I was primarily wondering about the lens. Wondering if it was bad in low light etc. Don't want grainy snaps :) Any advice would be great.

EDIT: So I guess its an S2750 :rolleyes: The people typing out the posters are Argos must be idiots. Checking now, still can't find a lot to go on though.

EDIT 2: Hmm...worth the difference in price?

http://www.argos.ie/static/Product/partNumber/5593543/Trail/searchtext%3EFUJI.htm

http://www.argos.ie/static/Product/partNumber/5595125/Trail/searchtext%3EFUJI.htm

poopinmymouth

03-03-2011, 02:26 PM

Bridge cameras have to use positively minuscule sensors to still get the crazy reach their lenses have in a compact package. You will absolutely get grainy images in anything other than sunlight.

If you want good image quality in a small package (relatively speaking) you'll have to accept a reasonable lens reach, something like 3x, maybe 4x. If you want crazy zoom reach but good image quality, you're going to have to use a bigger lens and camera.

Andreas

03-03-2011, 02:50 PM

Hmm ok thanks. I'll look into it more I guess. But researching it is being a pain frankly -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xN-MzywEPk

:P

EarthQuake

03-03-2011, 08:02 PM

Right, and aside from price, bridge cameras are generally just worthless. You've got a big bulky camera to carry around but none of the benefits of a real dSLR, so why the hell not just get a compact?

Andreas

03-04-2011, 02:43 AM

Look cooler for cheaper? :P

Shaffer

03-04-2011, 11:37 AM

Earthquake- I got that lens in the mail yesterday and it works, so I didn't end up with a useless lens. This one was rechipped or a later model or something, it's exactly as I described earlier.

EarthQuake

03-04-2011, 11:51 AM

Oh, nice! Yeah sigma will rechip them if they're not too old, and likely the previous owner got it done then. Didn't see you mention it was rechipped.

I've got a quantaray 24mm 2.8 sitting here that would be nice if I could get it rechipped, but think its too old and no real support for quantaray even tho its a sigma design.

Shaffer

03-05-2011, 09:17 AM

Maybe you can do it yourself, I suspect the parts to be rare though since sigma no longer does it themselves. Might be another ebay niche deal market though, the re-chipped ones that people overlook. The ad I got mine from said they tested it with a 7D so I figured I was good.

EarthQuake

03-05-2011, 02:07 PM

Yeah probably not worth the effort. IMO its best to just avoid older sigma lenses if they're not "DC/DG"(for digital), or you know they have been chipped.

Andreas

03-05-2011, 03:52 PM

Ended up going with the bridge, can't afford a fill DSLR right now and besides I'm just starting out... was playing around with it today.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1637572/flowers.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1637572/staring%20contest.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1637572/sushi.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1637572/sashimi.jpg

These are untouched apart from resizing. Gonna look into post processing, find some tutorials. Can anyone reccomend some good ones? I'll test the video capability later on in the week.

disanski

03-18-2011, 06:43 AM

Not sure if anybody here cares about this but I wanted to share it any way so I amposting it here :)

It is a free 3 days workshop streaming online :
Posing and Lighting with Bambi Cantrell (http://creativelive.com/courses/posing-and-lighting-bambi-cantrell)

Cojax

03-25-2011, 09:43 AM

Lots of really good advice it seems on this thread.

I have just entered in the market for a dslr camera. I will be going to Italy in September and figured now was the time to get into photography a bit. I had always wanted to take up photography as side hobby, seems a lot of other artist here do as well.

I'm looking at getting the Canon 20d, with a nice 50mm lens. I just wanted some ideas on lenses and also the best spot to buy this stuff. I have a lot more I need to learn, so any further advise would be great. This thread just has so much to take in, I figured I would just ask to be safe. Thanks!

EarthQuake

03-25-2011, 10:04 AM

Ebay is where I buy all my used gear. I've made a few posts here in the thread on"why ebay isn't evil", that you may want to take a look at. If you still feel leery about ebay; keh.com is a great place to look. They tend to have the largest selection of used gear, and at good prices as well. A 20d body should cost you about $200-225 used on ebay, and you may find one with the kit 18-55mm for that price or slightly more, the 18-55mm is a decent lens(even though everyone thinks it is terrible) to have because of the very wide 18mm lens, which is essential on a crop body. A 20D on keh will likely run $250-300.

I would recommend you buy the 20D used, and the 50mm new(for $110-120 ish) because the build quality is so poor on it, its so cheap, and sells for nearly as much used.

Beyond the 50mm, some good lenses to think about, prices below are for ebay, Keh will run higher:

Primes:

Canon 28mm 2.8 ~$175 a good combo with the 50mm on a budget
Canon 28mm 1.8 ~$400, great lens but for the price, the sigma is probably better
Sigma 30mm 1.4 ~$400 great low light general purpose
Canon 35mm 2.0 ~$225 great general purose, moderatly fast lest, but not a good pairing with a 50mm if these are your only lenses
Canon 50mm 2.5 macro ~$200, this is a decent choice over the 50mm 1.8 if you would rather have close focusing than the extra speed(likely not many people would, but who knows)
Canon 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0 ~$300, good portrait/short telephoto lenses
Cosina/Promaster/Vivitar/etc 100mm 3.5 macro $$75-150, cheap as hell, slow loud focusing, but awesome image quality and a fraction of what you would pay for name brand macro lens

Zooms:
Sigma 15-30mm 3.5-4.5, ~$250, a good alternative to the 18-55mm, if you want the super-wide range. This would be a good pairing with the 50mm lens, but the price is a bit steep
Canon 18-55mm II IS ~$100, if you dont get one of these or the earlier version with a body, this is a good lens to have, but if you're looking specifically for it, do not buy the old version. Make sure you get the II IS, as it has more features, and improved optics and wont cost more than $20-30 extra.
Canon 24-85mm USM 3.5-4.5 ~$175, this is one of the best "value" zooms canon makes, it is older and has better build quality, full time manual focusing etc. It also has a pretty wide 24mm end, that is likely wide enough for most situations. This makes it a relatively good walk around lens.
Canon 28-105mm USM 3.5-4.5, ~$175 similar to the above but less wide and more long, I would go with the 24-85 over this, but its worth mentioning.
Canon 28-135mm IS 3.5-5.6 ~$250, another good general purpose lens, even more on the wide end again, honestly at this price point I would rather invest in a good prime than a zoom.

Zooms are slow and blurry, but convenient, primes are fast and sharp, but you've gotta have a few of them, and interchange frequently.

EarthQuake

03-25-2011, 10:22 AM

Oh, and some nutball lenses, if you're rich, insane, make a living as a photographer or all of the above:

Canon 24mm 1.4L $1200
Canon 35mm 1.4L $1200
Canon 50mm 1.2L $1400
Canon 85mm 1.2L $1700
Canon 135mm 2.0L $900

Canon 16-35mm 2.8L $1400
Canon 17-55mm 2.8L $850
Canon 24-70mm 2.8L $1200
Canon 70-200mm 2.8L $1800

Just for fun.

Cojax

03-25-2011, 11:15 AM

Dude. Your awesome. Thanks!

disanski

03-25-2011, 11:21 AM

Great info as always EQ :)
It could be a good idea to think what kind of photography are you interested in and based on that to get lens that are appropriate. So if you know tell us and then we could be more specific.

EDIT: I also have a question EQ or somebody else: I have been on ebay for the last 2 - 3 weeks trying to get one of those canon 85mm f/1.8 and they cost 420 from B&H brand new and they sell on ebay for 390 or so + shipping and I just dont get it. Why is the price the same and why would someone get used lens for 10$ less than a brand new one with 2 years warranty?
I am sure there is something I dont understand :)

EarthQuake

03-25-2011, 12:55 PM

If thats what you're seeing go for the new lens. Last time I looked it seemed like you could get a used one for $300-325 though. Looking now they seem to average about $350.

What I do is pretty simple, check completed listings:
http://completed.shop.ebay.com/i.html?LH_Complete=1&LH_ItemCondition=12&_nkw=canon+ef+85mm+1.8&_trkparms=65%253A13%257C66%253A2%257C39%253A1&rt=nc&_dmpt=Camera_Lenses&_sticky=1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_sop=16&_sc=1
(you'll need to be logged in to see that)

Then settle on a price, and use an auction sniping program(I use http://www.auctionsniper.com/, i think the first few snipes are free, then 1% fee) and just snipe the auctions until you win one at a price you like, which takes time and patients.

As far as why you would buy one used for almost the same cost as new well, a couple reasons, some people are just dumb and dont do a very good job researching, they think a used lens on ebay is automatically a good deal. Some people have limited local options and some places do not ship international, then its probabbly a much better deal.

disanski

03-25-2011, 01:24 PM

Thanks again EQ. What a nice tool is this sniper think. I wish I knew about it last week when I stayed up till 4 am to wait on one of those silly auctions that I lost :) I dont really trade on ebay ever since I moved back to Bulgaria because the postal services are not very reliable and an item can go missing very easy and nobody is responsible after that. This time is different because i have someone coming back from the states and they will bring it to me.
Speaking of that I got a lovely OPTOMAX 135mm f/2.8 but I am still waiting on a adapter so I can actually use it and I am very curious to see how will this adapter confirm the focus and if the quality is any good.
Thanks again.

Cojax

03-25-2011, 09:01 PM

Well it looks like this is my best bet.

http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-Digital-Camera-Bodies/1/sku-DC029990723120?r=FE

It took me a while to figure out what the hell was going on with all the different postings for 20D bodies.

As for the lens. I think I will just grab the standard Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 II for starters. Then move up shortly after to something a little better.

EarthQuake

03-31-2011, 08:07 AM

Just ordered a Pro-Optic(Samyang) 8mm 3.5 fisheye! wooooo

http://www.lenstip.com/160.1-Lens_review-Samyang_8_mm_f_3.5_Aspherical_IF_MC_Fish-eye_Introduction.html

Same lens is sold under Rokinon, Promaster, Opteka, Vivitar, Bower, etc etc, but all are Samyang made. It gives full 180(167 on Canon, stupid 1.6 crop) rectangular fisheye on a crop body. No AF, manual aperture, but this should be fine on a lens of this sort.

Paid $210. Which is cheap as hell bro! You can buy em new for about $280 as well. Will post some shots in the other thread when I get it, just though other people might be interested in a cheap ass fisheye, because honestly, who wants to spend $600+ or whatever for a fisheye? =P

jeffw23

04-01-2011, 02:08 AM

Hi guys, i would like to solicit some advice here. I have decided to get an upgrade from my sony t500 point and shoot to real camera. I have initially chosen Canon d90 but i got really attracted to the g12 and to the sony nex-5. I really want a dslr but the compact ones seem to get my attention. Do you guys think that i should go for the g12? I'm not a photographer and i just want something to take casual pictures with. Any opinions would be very much appreciated.

EarthQuake

04-01-2011, 10:57 AM

Out of those choices I would have to recommend the NEX-5, however it isn;t really that compact when you throw a lens on it. So at that point, you're probably better off with just a standard size SLR. But the Lumix GF1/2, Olympus EP1/2, Sony NEX-3/5 are all very capable cameras that can deliver excellent results, even compared to a pro-level compact camera like the S90, G12, etc, simply because they are "real" dSLRs.

When we look at cost of "PRO" compact cameras, we see:

Canon S95: $400
Canon G12: $500

Really, you can buy a semi-pro used DSLR system for this cost, or a brand new M4/3 DSLR system for just a little more. When you consider you're getting a lot more camera for your dollar here, I think the choice is obvious. However, you really have to ask yourself: "Does size really matter?". The g12 itself isn't really all that small, the S90/95 is. The NEX-5 body is tiny, but the lenses are about as big as full size Canon EF lenses, so its not really a "small" camera. The Olympus/Lumix cameras are smaller in practical terms, with the pancake lenses.

Now, if you throw a zoom lens on any of these m4/3 cameras, they are going to be big. Not quite as bit as a full size DSLR, but much bigger than a compact camera. The NEX especially.

I would personally go for something like the Olympus EP-1 kit with 17mm 2.8 pancake lens. This is cheap, about $500-550, small enough to reasonably carry it around with you, with maybe a small camera bag or something. And then get the 14-42mm zoom for when you want a bit more versatility. Or even just stick with the 17mm pancake - tho this is something I would suggest to someone who wants to seriously learn photography, less for someone who just wants to take some snapshots every now and then.

If you have no interest beyond casual snapshots, go for the S90/S95. Its really about the best you can do at the size. But if you want more than that, or feel you might want more in the future, its far too much too spend now on a compact camera you'll replace when you find its shortcomings.

However, for casual snapshots, $400 is probably too much to spend as well. I still sort of fail to see exactly what demographic the S90/S95 has. I guess its a good camera if you have a lot of excess income, but don't really care tooo much about photography. =P

poopinmymouth

04-02-2011, 05:19 AM

The Nex sensors are noticeably better than the M4/3 offerings (in noise and dynamic range). The Nex-3 with kit lens and 16mm is an incredible value, and you can mount almost any lens ever with a cheap adapter. My one reason for not getting one is that there isn't a good, cheap, small 35mm f/2 or faster lens option for it.

Also, it is actually pretty compact and light in comparison to a dslr. An s90 is worlds smaller, yes, but if you want a good sensor, nothing is smaller than the Nex bodies, and the lenses are the same size or smaller than DSLR lenses.

Also the panasonic 20mm 1.7 is sooo much better than the 17mm 2.8.

Plus with an articulated screen, it's possible to use the NEx at waist level with the screen flipped out so you are looking down at it. Much less conspicuous than an arm's length LCD experience of the M4/3 or S90.

Also the s90 is not 400 dollars. You can get new ones for around 300, and used ones for closer to 200. Nothing else offers that image quality and lens coverage for that price, nothing.

Entity

04-02-2011, 06:31 AM

Yeah the nex is pretty small, even when you stick the shitty zoom lens it still has a smaller form.

EarthQuake

04-02-2011, 09:38 AM

Well, the point I was making about the nex, is that with most 1st party lenses, its actually going to be larger than an Oly/Lumix counterpart, and if size is a big concern, that is something to think about. Certainly a 1.5x crop Sony is going to beat out a 2x crop Oly/Lumix, however all 3 are going to spank the s90 when it comes to sensor, and for a first time, casual user, I think its safe to say that he'd notice the difference between a S90 and a EP1, more than he would an EP1 and a NEX-5.

As far as comparisons to a full size DSRL, sure the NEX-5 is smaller, I never said otherwise, however, with a kit zoom attached I certainly wouldn't refer to it as overlay compact. An entry level DSLR isn't going to be *that* much bigger, and will likely be a lot more comfortable to actually shoot with. Its not like you can fit a NEX in your pocket or something, so you're stuck carrying a camera bag with you either way.

I said the S95 is about $400. The S90 actually sells new on ebay/amazon for $285-490, and the S95 new for $350-450, so the prices I quoted were hardly out of line. Used, $200 is the absolute min you can pick up an S90 for, so it isn't really realistic to say you can get them for 200. So no, an S90 sells closer to about $350 on average.

I was reading about using the Pany 20mm 1.7 on a Oly body the other day, and that could be a pretty great setup actually. Pick up a EP-1 body for $250-300 and used 20mm 1.7 for $350, would make a pretty nice kit for a beginner.

You sort of hit the nail on the head about the Nex and lenses, as right now the selection is really quite poor, you cant use Pany/Oly lenses(which can be used on either system), you can get an adaptor to use Alpha/Maxxum lenses, but at that point, you're better off with a full size SLR. The nex pancake is a super wide 24mm equiv, whereas Panasonic offers a 40mm equiv, and Olympus a 35mm equiv, which are going to be much better ranges for general photography. All this considered, is hard to say the NEX is far and away the best option. Is it a good option? Sure, does it have the potential to be fantastic? Of course, but Its not really there yet with the current lenses available.

[edit] Lumix + kit zoom/Nex + kit zoom are about the same size, Oly + kit zoom is significantly smaller