General dSLR advice
Hey all,
I'm currently considering buying a new camera. I've had an old Ricoh R-something for a few years and it's done the job, but it's never been much more than a 'capture the moment' camera.
Now I'm certainly no photographer, nor do I intend to become one, but at least having the option to take some decent looking shots would be a great plus. Also, shots for ref and textures would be cool too.
I've had a look around and it seems the Lumix GF1 has some favourable reviews and I do like the look of some of the features. However I must admit I don't really understand a lot of the jargon used. What the hell is micro four thirds? Can you change the lenses... if so, are there many compatible lenses available?
The biggest drawback is the price... for a compact it's expensive, but for those in the know... does it warrant the cost?
This leads me on to my second point, and I'd appreciate some honesty rather than just persuasion from those who have a DSLR;
At that price point should I just save a bit more and go for a DSLR?
As I said, I'm not really a photographer, but I would like to be able to take decent pictures. Currently, I can't see myself packing a bag full of lenses and going out on a specific photography trip, but who knows, if I enjoy shooting with a decent camera, I might end up doing just this.
I do love the fact the GF1 is a compact, but if I'm really missing out by simply choosing the GF1 for its size, then I'd like to know about it.
Also, I should mention, I know the GF2 is out soon (or already) but it seems it's not getting as good reviews due to a over complicated setup due to removal of buttons, and the same image sensor as the GF1.
I know there's some photogs out there so would appreciate some tips/advice!
Thanks
I'm currently considering buying a new camera. I've had an old Ricoh R-something for a few years and it's done the job, but it's never been much more than a 'capture the moment' camera.
Now I'm certainly no photographer, nor do I intend to become one, but at least having the option to take some decent looking shots would be a great plus. Also, shots for ref and textures would be cool too.
I've had a look around and it seems the Lumix GF1 has some favourable reviews and I do like the look of some of the features. However I must admit I don't really understand a lot of the jargon used. What the hell is micro four thirds? Can you change the lenses... if so, are there many compatible lenses available?
The biggest drawback is the price... for a compact it's expensive, but for those in the know... does it warrant the cost?
This leads me on to my second point, and I'd appreciate some honesty rather than just persuasion from those who have a DSLR;
At that price point should I just save a bit more and go for a DSLR?
As I said, I'm not really a photographer, but I would like to be able to take decent pictures. Currently, I can't see myself packing a bag full of lenses and going out on a specific photography trip, but who knows, if I enjoy shooting with a decent camera, I might end up doing just this.
I do love the fact the GF1 is a compact, but if I'm really missing out by simply choosing the GF1 for its size, then I'd like to know about it.
Also, I should mention, I know the GF2 is out soon (or already) but it seems it's not getting as good reviews due to a over complicated setup due to removal of buttons, and the same image sensor as the GF1.
I know there's some photogs out there so would appreciate some tips/advice!
Thanks
Replies
Some prefer the EP1, but mostly for the looks. The GF1 is alot more intuitive, and image quality is wonderful for something that small.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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
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.
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
C-Twenty-Who?
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.
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.
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: [ame]http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-Photographs-Digital-Updated/dp/0817463003[/ame]
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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
Now if we start talking L lenses, then yeah, heuge
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.
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.
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.
Because of the low cost, extremely high image quality and versatility of a fast 1.8 aperture, its the perfect starter lens.
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?
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/
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
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
I am just all in for the 50 mm 1.8
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.
that should help a lot now.
Beautiful light coming from the window
heh
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.
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.
-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.
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.
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.