Even though this site mainly focuses on using Nikon, all of the principals and techniques can be applied to other flash systems. It's pretty much the bible with regards to using flash:
Hey guys, my girlfriend is really inclined to do professional photography, but we can't settle on a camera yet.
To choose she went through a lot of her favorite images on on-line galleries(like 500px and such) and wrote down what cameras do they use. Canon 5d rose to the top.
The thing is it's pretty damn expensive and I have some of my photography friends tell me to go for a cheaper camera and go all out on lenses.
This makes sense to me, but to convince my GF I need some visual aid. Like show her images from a cheaper camera, but with an awesome lens that look better then 5d images. Or at least just know the specific lenses worth looking into.
What's your take on all of this? I would really appreciate some help.
She mostly does parties, weddings, personal photo sessions. Nothing that would warrant a fisheye or something too special.
Hey guys, my girlfriend is really inclined to do professional photography, but we can't settle on a camera yet.
To choose she went through a lot of her favorite images on on-line galleries(like 500px and such) and wrote down what cameras do they use. Canon 5d rose to the top.
The thing is it's pretty damn expensive and I have some of my photography friends tell me to go for a cheaper camera and go all out on lenses.
This makes sense to me, but to convince my GF I need some visual aid. Like show her images from a cheaper camera, but with an awesome lens that look better then 5d images. Or at least just know the specific lenses worth looking into.
What's your take on all of this? I would really appreciate some help.
She mostly does parties, weddings, personal photo sessions. Nothing that would warrant a fisheye or something too special.
Thank you very much in advance.
The camera doesn't make the photos, the photographer makes the photos. Buying the best camera won't make the best photos, and buying something less than the absolute best doesn't mean you wont be able to take amazing photos.
Generally the better the photographer is, the more expensive camera gear they have. This doesn't mean more expensive camera gear makes you a better photographer, its the reverse really, the better you get the high quality gear you will need for various reasons. So her favorite photos being taken with very nice cameras doesn't really mean anything, it just means that the best/most sucessful photographers out there can afford nice cameras. If the same photographers were using cheap cameras, she would still like the images they create, because again its the photographer, not the camera, especially in the DSLR range where the differences in actual image quality between any camera made in the same time frame-ish are extremely small.
Ok, so lets just run through the basic "teirs" of cameras here, focusing on DSLRs of course.
1. High end professional/sport cameras. These are the absolute top of the line. The Canon 1D series, Nikon D3/D4, etc. What do these offer over lesser cameras? Really high shooting rates, very complex AF systems for tracking fast moving sports, super heavy duty build and weather sealing for using in extreme conditions. These run $5000+ generally
2. Mid range professional full frame cameras. This is your Canon 5D MKIII, Your Nikon D700, D800, Sony A99 etc. These offer generally the same image quality as the top tier, usually just less extreme feature sets. Often still weather sealed but not built to stand up to the same working conditions. This range is usually updated more frequently so you will often actually see more features than the top teir. $2500+
3. Low end full frame cameras. This is a fairly new market, the Canon 6D and Nikon D600 qualify. These are very similar to the 2nd tier but with a few less features. These cameras will take photos every bit as nice as the two top teirs because the sensors used are on the same level. $2000+
4. Professional/High end APS-C(crop) cameras. This is the top end of the "consumer" range. Like the top end of the professional market these cameras are often geared towards sports shooters, with high frame rates and complex AF systems for tracking moving subjects. This is the Canon 7D, the Nikon D7000, Sony A77, etc. $1000+
5. Mid-low range APS-C DSLR cameras. Pretty much everything else here. Very good cameras generally but usually lacking basic ergonomic things like dual control dials that would make them poor choices for professional work.
You can also pick up a slightly older model of some of these higher teirs, like the Canon 5D MKII, Nikon D700, Sony A900, etc for under $2000. These cameras are a few years old now but were the top of the second teir when they came out, and will still produce very very good images.
If you don't know the difference between a fullframe or APS-C camera, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference in the photos you take either. The basic differences is: with equivalent lenses a fullframe camera can make the background a little more blurry (which is great for portraits, subject isolation) and FF cameras generally will provide 1-2 stops better high ISO performance, which means less noise when it gets dark.
As far as buying lenses over cameras. This is absolutely 100% what you need to do. Just think about it, if you buy a $3000 camera but have no money left to spend on good lenses, what are you going to do? Buy a $100 lens to put on your $3000 camera? If you're shooting weddings professionally, in the Canon system you're going to be looking at Canon L lenses, many of which cost $1000+ PER LENS. So you can't blow your budget on a camera body. A camera body without lenses is useless, an expensive camera body with a poor lens is worse if virtually every situation than a cheap camera with a fantastic lens. You also need to consider backup cameras and lenses, you can't shoot a wedding with just one camera and one lens, so that is a big budget concern as well.
NP! If you want some more specific advice, give me an idea of her skill level/experience, and the sort of requirements she has out of a camera. Even some of her favorite shots too, to get an idea of the style she's after and the sort of lenses she might need.
Still, I'm such a noob when it comes to equipment...
A couple of frustrations I have been facing, though, are when I want to capture large stuff in small rooms, and the lack of zoom. I'm slowly getting ready to buy a new lens. I've done my "homework" and came up with this lens that seems to be what I'm looking for (a.k.a. a wide angle lens with a small zoom ?)
I also considered the Tamron one (for its ridiculously low price) but I REALLY like the IS feature on the Canon version (could be VERY useful to shoot without tripod in low light or simply shooting movies).
I'm looking for thoughts and potentially people who have been using that specific lens.
(Sorry if this lens has already been mentioned in this thread, I haven't had a chance to go through the whole thing)
I picked up the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 used for about $300 on eBay. though I've got a Sony Alpha so in body IS. Great lens and small/light weight which means I almost always have it with me. I actually bought it for my wife more than anything, as she doesn't like primes, but I use it a lot more than I thought I would.
I would have a very hard time paying over a grand for a fast standard zoom.
One thing to remember about IS: It will only help with camera shake, you will still need to raise your shutter speed when shooting in low light with moving objects(ie: your friends at a bar). So IS may give you 3 or so stops with static subjects, it doesn't do anything for movement, you're still going to need to crank the ISO in those cases. So depending on what you need the lens for, IS/OS may not make much of a real difference*.
* Though I love having it with all of my lenses, even primes, on my Alpha. =P
On the other hand, IS can be cool for things like purposeful motion blur of a subway train going by with a slow shutter speed and no tripod, a very hard shot to take without IS or some sort of stabilization.
I also have the tamron 17-50 non VC version and it's really great for the price, sure the canon one is marginally better but I couldn't justified the price considering it's an EF-S. In my mind if I'm spending that much I would rather get an L lens.
If 'IS' is important then there is the tamron 17-50 VC version for similar price and I think it also give about 3 stops as well.
Also, D1ver, you might want to keep into consideration the crop factor benefits.
While Full-Frame bodies have their own set of advantages, so do APS-C (crop sensor) bodies.
Crop-sensors will give you a better pixel density than its full-frame counterparts.
Say you have a 24MP full-frame sensor, and a 24MP Crop-sensor, the reach you can achieve with your lenses will be greater on the crop-sensor. There is not a single full-frame body out there that can achieve the same pixel density as a good APS-C.
Essentially, you multiply the focal length of your lense by 1.5x (This if for Nikon, Canon has a 1.6x crop factor I think). So, say you have a 50mm lense, on an APS-C body, it is the equivalent of 75mm. 300mm becomes 450mm, and so on.
Now, you said your girlfriend mostly wants to shoot events, in which case full-frame would be the better choice. But you need to remember that FF bodies and lenses are significantly more expensive than APS-C.
If you're interested in shooting wildlife, the advantages of APS-C really shine.
Also, D1ver, you might want to keep into consideration the crop factor benefits.
While Full-Frame bodies have their own set of advantages, so do APS-C (crop sensor) bodies.
Crop-sensors will give you a better pixel density than its full-frame counterparts.
Say you have a 24MP full-frame sensor, and a 24MP Crop-sensor, the reach you can achieve with your lenses will be greater on the crop-sensor. There is not a single full-frame body out there that can achieve the same pixel density as a good APS-C.
Essentially, you multiply the focal length of your lense by 1.5x (This if for Nikon, Canon has a 1.6x crop factor I think). So, say you have a 50mm lense, on an APS-C body, it is the equivalent of 75mm. 300mm becomes 450mm, and so on.
Now, you said your girlfriend mostly wants to shoot events, in which case full-frame would be the better choice. But you need to remember that FF bodies and lenses are significantly more expensive than APS-C.
If you're interested in shooting wildlife, the advantages of APS-C really shine.
Yeah honestly for weddings I wouldn't suggest APS-C, ff is going to give the DOF control and high ISO noise advantage that a wedding photographer is going to want/need.
That said I have shot a couple weddings with APS-C gear, not professionally mind you but its totally doable.
A decent APS-C with a 50mm/1.4 gets you very far. I've done some professional-ish portraits for some friends recently and had very good results with this combo(and a few more lenses but this was mainly what was used). A FF + 85/1.4/1.2 would be better of course.
As far as crop factor/lens price goes, yeah APS-C gives you more reach(the generally FF have high MP so you can get some of it back by cropping - D800 esp), yeah some of the equivalent lenses are cheaper(like 50/1.4 vs 85/1.2/1.4, though the EF 85/1.8 is very good) but then you're more limited with fast wides. To get the same results as a 35/1.4 on FF you would need a 24/1.0 lens which nobody makes. A 24/1.4 on FF is equiv to 16/1.0 and there's really nothing anywhere near that on APS-C. So if you're after subject isolation with wides FF is your only option.
I completely agree when it comes to wide-angle lenses (especially fast primes), APS-C gets the short end of the stick.
Since I tend to always shoot at the longer end of focal lengths (50-300mm range), APS-C is my sensor of choice. I carry one Ultra-wide angle lense (11-16mm F/2.8 ) for my wide angle needs. Fortunately, all my lenses work on FF as well, so if ever I decide to migrate to full-frame, my lenses won't be useless.
It really all depends on what kind of photography you're into.
I have the Sigma 10-20 in A-Mount, the older one (f4-f5.6) which is sharper than the newer f3.5 one, and was about £100 cheaper at the time I bought it.
The 8-16 was temping, but you can't use filters on it.
I have the Sigma 10-20 in A-Mount, the older one (f4-f5.6) which is sharper than the newer f3.5 one, and was about £100 cheaper at the time I bought it.
The 8-16 was temping, but you can't use filters on it.
Yeah thats the only reason I haven't bough the 8-16mm yet(I have the 11-18mm Tamron). Though I think I will bite the bullet when I buy an A900 and pick up the Sigma 12-24mm too at some point so I have a super super super wide on FF and still a regular UW on APS-C. No filters with that one though either fdgdfgdfgf, but honestly I use filters with my 11-18mm very rarely.
These are all film cameras, you understand that right? They may seem cheap, but once you add in the cost of film, and processing, you'll be over the cost of a DSLR after a dozen rolls.
If you're specifically after an AF 35mm Film SLR I can recommend a few:
Canon Elan 7(n/e fine too) e = eye focus
Canon Elan II/IIe
Minolta 650si
Minolta 700si
Otherwise, you can pick up a used DSLR in the $300-500 range and get something quite decent these days. Like a used Canon T1i , Canon 40D, Nikon D80, D90, Sony A560/A580, etc.
What is a decent starting out tripod? Looking for one ideally that is fairly light weight to carry around and has easy to adjust tripod legs. Not looking at anything crazy expensive as it will be my first for my T3i.
Anything carbon fiber. Extremely solid, stable, lightweight. The one downside is that they tend to be a bit more expensive. I purchased a carbon fiber Velbon tripod for about $300, and got a ball-head. It might seem like a lot, but I can garantee you will never regret putting extra bucks into a good tripod. It's as important an investment as a new lense.
Back when I first started, I bought a cheap 40$ tripod, and told myself "as long as it holds my camera, that's all that matters, right?". That same day, I realized I'd made a huge mistake, and noticed how flimsy it was within the first 20 shots I'd taken.
You'll appreciate a lightweight tripod when you're traveling too. What's neat about the Velbon tripod I got, was that it came with a weight bag that attaches between the three legs, allowing you to place rocks or other heavy objects, to help weigh the tripod down, and really make it as steady as possible, even during windy days. I'm pretty sure you can make your own, though.
I've got a different idea of light weight. I've got an old bulky manfroto if I want something really sturdy, but if I want something I will actually take with me outdoors/hiking/vacation/etc I take a Slik Spirit Mini II.
This thing is tiny, it folds up to about 14" and weights 1.75 pounds. You can easily attach it to the bottom of your camera bag and forget it is there. IMO, anything larger than this and I never actually take it anywhere. I wouldn't feel safe with it and a 3 pound telephoto lens, and I probably wouldn't use it for 30 second exposures either, but casual on the go tripod use its great. It also doesn't extend very high at only 43.3" inches.
There was actually another one similar to this in the $130 range that has similar specs but extended past 50"s, but I don't recall the name of it though.
But really, light weight and inexpensive are super subjective, as someone has already suggested a $300 tripod, and someone else a 5 pound tripod. What do you consider light weight and inexpensive?
Ah thats exactly what I'm looking for EQ. Something that I can quickly and easily just take around with me for outdoors/vacation/random outings. Light and cheap. I know once I get deeper into things and acquire more lenses I will want to get something more sturdy like the 300 dollar tripods suggested.
But I am still really learning how to use my camera and only have the 18-55 and 55-250 lenses which are not that heavy. Going tow wait to buy more lenses/need a more sturdy tripod until I really know how to use my camera well as just adding new lenses wont make me better at photography.
Thoughts on this camera? Seems like a decent deal. Any reason not to go SONY?
As someone who shoots Sony cameras, the biggest reason not to go Sony is the use electronic viewfinders in all of their recent cameras. I would really suggest getting your hands on the camera and trying the viewfinder with a comparably priced Canon and Nikon as well. I've got an EVF in my OMD and OVFs in my Sony A580 and A900, both have pros/cons, but some EVFs really make me feel nauseous.
Biggest reasons to go Sony are probably image stabilization in the camera body(so all lenses are IS lenses, even primes, yay!) and large stock of vintage Minolta Maxxum lenses that can be purchased cheaply.
Nah just typical beginner stuff; people, landscapes, trips, etc. Coming from point and shoots, I would be more inclined to use the screen instead of the viewfinder anyways. Is the included lens worth much cop or will I be better off maybe just trying to find a body?
Always thought I'd go Canon when I finally invested in a DSLR but that camera is a very good deal. If there was a Canon in a very similar price range with specs of equal quality I might consider that.
Its not the latest model(T4i) but its very similar.
Oh another reason TO go Sony. Sony's live view focus is miles ahead of all the other camera makers. This is because of the SLT/EVF, Canon's live view af is really horrible(and nikon's and pentax's), so if you plan on using the LCD a lot, Sony is a good choice.
The kit lens is fine for a beginner, I would say get one, as the cost difference is usually less than $100. Its sometimes good to have a zoom, but basically its a mediocre, slow(which means bad for low light) general purpose lens. At worst a kit lens will help you decide what sort of lenses you will want to go with in the future.
A beginner kit of quality lenses for a Sony Alpha would be:
Minolta 50mm 1.7 $80, or Sony 50mm 1.8 $150 new - for portraits and extreme lowlight
Minolta 70-210mm 4.0 "beercan" $150 - used, a great telephoto zoom
Something like the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is a fantastic kit lens replacement, a wonderful general purpose zoom with fast 2.8 aperture which is much better for lowlight, for about $300 used.
For landscapes, an ultra wide angle zoom is really useful, interiors, architecture as well. A used Tamron 11-18mm for about $300 is a bargain.
If you've added it all up, you'll start to see that the real expense is going to be lenses, so depending on your budget, even $600 may be expensive for a body only. You can pick up a Sony A57 for $500 body only right now. http://www.adorama.com/ISOSLTA57.html
Used, you can find one even cheaper. Or a A55 used. I would personally recommend buying a model or two older, or used body only and pick up a Tamron 16-50/2.8 instead of the kit lens. This, way more than the latest model camera body, will actually improve your photos/allow you to take photos in more situations.
As far as video goes, generally the Sony cameras do pretty good video, similar to live view focusing the Sony SLTs offer much better AF in video mode than Canons. Though people will be quick to tell you that "all the pros use manual focus anyway" - its not really that relevant for a beginner.
The Sony A580 is also a very very good model that I personally have, its the last/best model they made before they switched to the electronic viewfinder. Though this model does not do AF in video mode.
So, tell me what features you find attractive on the Sony A58 vs something like the Canon T3i/T4i.
Would you really recommend going a model or two older though, considering there's bound to be a good few improvements to the body?
From what I've read reviews wise, with the T3i/4i's, you really get what you pay for, but the A58 seems to be surprisingly good for the money?
A lot of what you've said is going over my newbie head but thanks for the advice. I'll definitely look around at the A57's specs/video quality and try to decide. From what I've read of the budget canons, their picture quality leaves a lot to be desired (what's produced by the actual body, in any case. Poor ISO handling etc.)
I'm surprised at the price of even used lenses heh. Are canon lenses cheaper or are they all about the same? I know it all comes down to spending the most amount on lenses anyways. We have pretty good 'cash price' tech markets here in South Korea, and they have floors and floors of camera gear. Maybe there's a bargain to be found there.
Yeah, one or two bodies older, especially in the entry level sector where new bodies are released every year is not a bad idea. Unless you really, really know what you want and know why the newer model is better, I would probably opt to spend a little bit less.
The A58 for instance is actually a downgrade in certain features from the A57, because its actually a product merge of the A37 and A57 lines at a lower price point than the A57. So for instance, the A58 has a worse rear LCD screen(lower resolution, less articulation), lower burst shooting rate, plastic lens mount, etc, though it looks like it will have a better sensor in it.
Canon's sensors may be a little behind Sony's, but not to the point where its going to make a huge, or even noticable difference to a beginner. The fact of the matter is that a 5 year old DSLR, from any manufacturer, is going to be miles above any point and shoot or cell phone or whatever you've been shooting with.
For low light/high iso, the Canon is equivalent to the A57. Though the A57 has better dynamic range. The A580, despite being a 3 or so year old model at this point, is better than both of them however. The A580 has the same sensor as the Nikon D7000, and Pentax K5, which are $1200-ish cameras(or were, both have been replaced now). The reason the A57 is worse than the A580(though they share basically the same sensor) is because of the SLT mirror in the newer Sony cameras, which allows it to have the EVF, and better AF in live view and video mode(the A580 does not have AF in video mode).
Lenses... Lenses are expensive, the ones I listed here are very good value for the money. Good lenses are in the $300-600 range and great lenses in the $500-2000 range. Depending on how serious you're going to get in photography, buying lenses can become a very expensive hobby, and you will likely spend way way more money on lenses than camera bodies. Canon has similar lenses to the ones I listed for similar prices. The lenses I listed are very good value for the money, each are about the cheapest you can get for a decent lens in that class/type of lens.
Now starting off, you certainty don't need to go out and buy 4 lenses, Its good to stick with the kit lens until you have an idea of what you want. My suggestions here are for typical types of shooting that you will want to do that your kit lens won't be great at.
Thought I'd bring this thread back up, always enjoyed the discussion here.
This weekend I used my recently bought second-hand Sony NEX-5N for the first time. The reason i bought it next to my larger DSLR is that taking that one along on my motorcycle is cumbersome + I can only shoot through the viewfinder, which is impossible without taking my helmet off.
It's actually much better than I expected:
-Low light ISO is decent, having 25600 instead of 3200 is handy.
-The controls are pretty good, I almost feel bad saying it but they might even be faster than my DSLR's controls...
-There's no viewfinder, so it's all Liveview, but to my surprise this makes shooting full manual much easier (something i never really did so far). Just instantly seeing the results is pretty good.
-It does decent video too!
All in all perfect for my goal. Still have to go over all the pics from this weekend, but they should be fine quality-wise.
Yeah I'm pretty happy with my NEX-3N, which has the exact same sensor as the higher-end counterparts minus some bells and whistles. Not too shabby. I shoot with all on-board image processing off (anti-shake, noise reduction, etc.). Pretty happy with the results so far
The only thing I struggled with was the low resolution of the display, since it doesn't come with an analog viewfinder, like Xoliul mentioned. But it's nothing you can't work around using the focus assist feature.
I've been thinking about getting rid of my DSLR and looking into something smaller, although my A55 is kinda small compared to most DSLRs.
Been looking at the OM-D's lately, love the primes you can get for m4/3.
I've got the EM1 and EM5, though I would probably recommend getting the EM10 if you're looking to start a system with M43rds (or the Panasonic GX7). When you combine one of these cameras with a few of the small primes, or one of the pancake zooms, your setup will be a lot smaller than even the smaller DSLR kits, plus something like an OMD or GX7 has a lot more/better external controls than an A55 for instance. I used to shoot with Sony DSLRs (A580 and A900) and I found myself using the EM5 (which I picked up as a smaller alternative to those DSLRs) so much more that my M43rds system has replaced my DSLR system entirely.
When you get into the better lenses, the cost can be a bit higher, but I don't mind as I'm happy to pay for very, very good lenses that are very small, which means I will actually take them out and use them.
The Fuji X system is also getting quite good these days, especially the XT1 and some of the primes like the 23/1.4 and 56/1.2, but it still tends to be a bit larger overall than M43rds, and does not have in-body image stabilization, nor are the cameras as mature/responsive as M43rds bodies(esp AF), on the other hand it produces slightly better image quality due to the larger sense, so its a bit of give and take.
I've got the EM1 and EM5, though I would probably recommend getting the EM10 if you're looking to start a system with M43rds (or the Panasonic GX7). When you combine one of these cameras with a few of the small primes, or one of the pancake zooms, your setup will be a lot smaller than even the smaller DSLR kits, plus something like an OMD or GX7 has a lot more/better external controls than an A55 for instance. I used to shoot with Sony DSLRs (A580 and A900) and I found myself using the EM5 (which I picked up as a smaller alternative to those DSLRs) so much more that my M43rds system has replaced my DSLR system entirely.
When you get into the better lenses, the cost can be a bit higher, but I don't mind as I'm happy to pay for very, very good lenses that are very small, which means I will actually take them out and use them.
Thanks for the info EQ. Yeah the primes seem really great and also look really well constructed with the metal finishes.
I've never really minded paying more for something that is built better and made to last, I've always taken good care of my stuff as well.
How are the primes with filters? Can they take Lee filters system for example? That's one of the main things I haven't looked to much into.
I have the Lee polariser which is quite big, actually quite massive when compared to all of my lenses for my A55, I can't see this working on m4/3 systems.
I guess the screw on Filters are better suited to the smaller bodies of m4/3.
I don't use filters all that much, but I would say you're probably better off buying screw on filters. Most M43rds lenses have rather small filter threads, like 39mm, 46mm, 52mm, etc, so even good quality filters tend to be relatively inexpensive.
Would you say the EM1 is worth the extra over the EM5/EM10? Looks like they all share the same sensor and the EM1 has better IBS compared to the other two.
It does look a little bigger as well, but I'm sure still smaller than DSLR's.
Would you say the EM1 is worth the extra over the EM5/EM10? Looks like they all share the same sensor and the EM1 has better IBS compared to the other two.
It does look a little bigger as well, but I'm sure still smaller than DSLR's.
So in the EM1's favor:
Better ergonomics, nice big(for mirrorless) and very comfortable grip, physical buttons/switches for virtually every main function
PDAF on sensor for better AF while tracking moving subjects
Better weather sealing (when used with a sealed lens, EM5 has very good sealing too, EM10 has no sealing).
Better buffer, which means more continuous shooting before slowing down
Super awesome fantastic HDR mode that snaps 7 shots in 2EV increments with one shutter press (best I've seen in any camera). This is fantastic for HDR/360 pano stuff.
Bigger electronic viewfinder, best EVF I've seen in a camera, no longer makes me miss optical VF (live exposure preview is a big benefit with EVFs)
1/8000th shutter vs 1/4000 so you can open up fast lenses in bright light for more DOF control
IBIS is better, its crazy good (I can get down to 1.3 second shutter speed hand held with wider lenses, but all 3 have very good IBIS.
Image quality is basically the same, so unless you need the more advanced level features, its hard to recommend the EM1 over the 5 or 10 due to the price, you can pick up a couple good lenses for the price difference. Really, its best to invest money into lenses, they retain value much better and will give you more improvement in your photos than a new/different camera will. Though I do really love this camera.
One of the biggest issues I had with the EM5 was the large focus points, which made the camera often focus on a background element instead of the subject. However, this was fixed in a firmware update, now you can make the focus box smaller, though the EM1 has more/smaller focus points so its even better in this regard. Some of the buttons look to be a little better placed on the EM10 vs the EM5, despite being a little smaller, I think if I was buying new I would probably get a 10 over the 5 unless weather sealing was a big need.
Cheers EQ, very insightful info there. The HDR mode sounds excellent compared to the one on my A55 which did bracketing in odd steps of like .3/.7
I'll do a little more reading on it, the EM1 does sound really tempting though.
Np, I would start by figuring out which lenses you're going to need, put together a budget and then see if you can fit the EM1 into that budget.
If you want some lens suggestions, let me know how you plan to use it, eg what sorts of photography you tend to do, how much like you generally work in, weather you prefer zooms or primes, etc.
I could probably sell some of my gear that I hardly use to increase my funds somewhat.
Generally prefer landscape stuff, so I was looking at the wide angle lens like the Oly 12mm 2.0.
I would be nice to have a portrait lens in there as well, so maybe the Oly 45mm 1.8 would do until I could get the Oly 75mm 1.8
Definatley prefer the primes over zooms.
Ok cool, yeah I can highly recommend both the 12mm and the 45mm, if you're not going to pick up a zoom you may want to consider one of the 25mms (oly 1.8 or pana 1.4 which I have - a little bigger and more expensive but 2/3rds stop faster) as well, but I think the 12 and 45 as a starter kit would give you a lot to work with. For landscapes I like the 12 or 25, and 45 is very good for portraits.
The 75/1.8 is also fantastic, really only negative for it is the price, its basically a flawless lens.
If you do city scapes/interiors and need a really wide lens, look into the Panasonic 7-14mm or the Olympus 9-18mm. The Panasonic is significantly wider, but doesn't take filters and has some serious purple lens flare issues on Olympus cameras that lack a strong UV filter on the sensor (I have it and love it anyway, despite the flare issue). The 9-18mm is smaller, cheaper, takes filters, but 9mm is significantly less wide than 7mm.
When I go out shooting for the day I usually take 3-4 of the following lenses with me, depending on what I'm doing/where I'm going: 7-14/4, 12/2, 25/1.4, 45/1.8, 75/1.8.
If you're looking at a standard zoom, the Olympus 12-40/2.8 is very, very good, but fairly large and expensive (though you can get it in a kit with the EM1). The Panasonic 12-35/2.8 is similarly good, a bit smaller and lighter as well, though it has less range and doesn't focus as close (the 12-40 focuses to 1:3 which is pseudo macro territory).
The Panasonic 12-32 3.5-5.6 is also very good for a a kit lens, and is tiny and weighs absolutely nothing. Its a bit expensive for what it is though, but again it weighs like 70g so you can always have it with you if you want to run out in good light with a basic zoom. Look on eBay for used ones taken out of GM1 kits. Similarly, if you go with an EM10, pick up the kit with the 14-42 pancake EZ lens, these tiny lenses make the overall package so small.
Been looking at the prices here and for some reason the black versions of the M.Zuiko primes are commending a premium over the silver versions.
Not that it matters that much, but it would be nice have matching camera and body, considering I haven't seen the silver EM-1 for sale here.
On a side note, what's your opinion on the Sony A7/R? Seems like these cameras are really focused at taking on both the DSLR and CSC market in one go. Full Frame sensors in small bodies of camera like the OMD range.
The lenses still look as big as ever, but I guess this is the nature of FF lenses.
Been looking at the prices here and for some reason the black versions of the M.Zuiko primes are commending a premium over the silver versions.
Not that it matters that much, but it would be nice have matching camera and body, considering I haven't seen the silver EM-1 for sale here.
Yes unfortunately this is the case, in some cases like the 12/2 the black was only released as an overpriced "special edition", the 45 and 75 you should be able to find for the same price new, but used the black versions sell for more.
On a side note, what's your opinion on the Sony A7/R? Seems like these cameras are really focused at taking on both the DSLR and CSC market in one go. Full Frame sensors in small bodies of camera like the OMD range.
The lenses still look as big as ever, but I guess this is the nature of FF lenses.
I don't think the A7/r cameras are there yet. I think they were really rushed to get to market, so usability suffers quite a bit, slow/bad AF, poor responsiveness, really slow burst rate, poor buffer, and very limited lens selection.
The 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 primes are very, very good, but you pretty much need to shoot them on a tripod wit the A7R to really eek out that extra degree of performance for it to make sense as a system. If you shoot landscapes with a 50mm-ish lens and print absolutely massive sizes it would be a decent choice. Its certainly priced right for how fabulous the sensor is.
Lens size comes down to basic physics, a FF sensor is 4 times larger than M43rds, so you get about 1.5-2 stops better ISO performance, better dynamic range, but the lenses are going to be 2x or more the size, and the F4 24-70mm while not being that much bigger than the 2.8 zooms for M43rds, is 1 stop slower and significantly worse optically, so you have to make compromises to design small lenses for that system.
When you get into telephoto lenses you're hitting the basic laws of physics. A 70-200mm lens for nex FE mount is roughly the same size as a 70-200mm lens for a Canon DSLR. On the other hand the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 is absolutely tiny in comparison. So you're really not gaining much in the way of size advantage. The 35/2.8 is a very compact lens, but the Oly 17/1.8 is about the same size and gives you very similar optically/DOF performance and lets you use a much more mature system.
I think the Sony FF mirrorless system may be awesome in a few years, but right now it's still pretty half baked. Sony has a tendency to release many more camera bodies than lenses, so it may be a solid 5 years before it has a relatively complete lens selection.
Honestly if Sony would have released a more mature A7 with better usability, IBIS, with relatively compact 35/2 and 85/2 lenses I would have bought it on launch as I was really excited about it, but I'm pretty disappointed with the actual product.
Again the Fuji X system I think is a much better choice if you want something with better image quality than M43rds and can handle a little extra size/weight. To me, the latest M43rds sensors are at the point where they are simply good enough for all but the most challenging work (low light sports for example). Easily as good as sensors Canon has been using in their APS-C DSLRs (better dynamic range even).
Yeah the M4/3 system looks to offer the best tradeoff between quality and portability. Maybe in a few years like you say, we can have both.
I do like the idea of FF in smaller bodies like these, although like you say the physics of lenses will always keep them from being more portable.
Plus I'm not that yet good enough were I could warrant a FF camera.
I agree the problem with Sony is it releases too many camera with not enough lenses to support the bodies. It'd good that there doing things like the RX1 and A7 and trying different stuff, but the A mount I feel doesn't get enough love. Good thing we have all those old Minolta lenses to fill in the gaps of A mount.
Yeah the M4/3 system looks to offer the best tradeoff between quality and portability. Maybe in a few years like you say, we can have both.
I do like the idea of FF in smaller bodies like these, although like you say the physics of lenses will always keep them from being more portable.
Plus I'm not that yet good enough were I could warrant a FF camera.
I agree the problem with Sony is it releases too many camera with not enough lenses to support the bodies. It'd good that there doing things like the RX1 and A7 and trying different stuff, but the A mount I feel doesn't get enough love. Good thing we have all those old Minolta lenses to fill in the gaps of A mount.
Yeah honestly, I love my A900, but its too damned big and heavy to ever leave the house. I can get shallower DOF with it, but I end up stopping down just to get *enough* in focus or to avoid PDAF focusing errors to the point that I'm not really even using what the camera is really good at. I was never really happy enough with the A99 to buy it, IMO if I'm going to use a camera with an EVF it might as well be a small mirrorless setup that I can easily take out.
I just picked up the Panasonic 42.5/1.2, which is sort of crazy expensive, but now I can do ultra shallow DOF when I need it. So my A900 and Sigma 85/1.4 will go on eBay. I already sold off the rest of my A-mount gear and I'm glad i did it, prices there continue to drop and drop as people worry that Sony will eventually drop A mount support entirely in favor of E mount.
Yeah thinking about selling mine as well, future doesn't look too good for A mount. I don't have too much invested, but better to get the most for it now, than nothing later down the line unless somehow Sony magically bring out something special to warrant investing in A mount.
Yeah, the XT1 or one of the OMD's would be my camera if I was buying into a system today.
If you don't care about IBIS, and want some fantastic primes and an awesome sensor, the XT1 +23/1.4 and 56/1.2.... Really can't go wrong.
I owned the XE1 for a short bit and it was a pretty quirky camera, not nearly as quick in operation as my EM5, though the XT1 is supposedly a decent improvement over it. Overall size/weight is a bit larger than M43rds stuff, but still smaller than your average DSLR.
I love that both the OMD and X-T1 both have have the manual control knobs on the camera itself, no routing through menus to change basic settings.
X-T1 seems to have some great primes, 14, 23, 35, 56 with supposedly a fast ultra-wide coming soon. Love that they have aperture rings on them as well.
Replies
http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html
To choose she went through a lot of her favorite images on on-line galleries(like 500px and such) and wrote down what cameras do they use. Canon 5d rose to the top.
The thing is it's pretty damn expensive and I have some of my photography friends tell me to go for a cheaper camera and go all out on lenses.
This makes sense to me, but to convince my GF I need some visual aid. Like show her images from a cheaper camera, but with an awesome lens that look better then 5d images. Or at least just know the specific lenses worth looking into.
What's your take on all of this? I would really appreciate some help.
She mostly does parties, weddings, personal photo sessions. Nothing that would warrant a fisheye or something too special.
Thank you very much in advance.
The camera doesn't make the photos, the photographer makes the photos. Buying the best camera won't make the best photos, and buying something less than the absolute best doesn't mean you wont be able to take amazing photos.
Generally the better the photographer is, the more expensive camera gear they have. This doesn't mean more expensive camera gear makes you a better photographer, its the reverse really, the better you get the high quality gear you will need for various reasons. So her favorite photos being taken with very nice cameras doesn't really mean anything, it just means that the best/most sucessful photographers out there can afford nice cameras. If the same photographers were using cheap cameras, she would still like the images they create, because again its the photographer, not the camera, especially in the DSLR range where the differences in actual image quality between any camera made in the same time frame-ish are extremely small.
Ok, so lets just run through the basic "teirs" of cameras here, focusing on DSLRs of course.
1. High end professional/sport cameras. These are the absolute top of the line. The Canon 1D series, Nikon D3/D4, etc. What do these offer over lesser cameras? Really high shooting rates, very complex AF systems for tracking fast moving sports, super heavy duty build and weather sealing for using in extreme conditions. These run $5000+ generally
2. Mid range professional full frame cameras. This is your Canon 5D MKIII, Your Nikon D700, D800, Sony A99 etc. These offer generally the same image quality as the top tier, usually just less extreme feature sets. Often still weather sealed but not built to stand up to the same working conditions. This range is usually updated more frequently so you will often actually see more features than the top teir. $2500+
3. Low end full frame cameras. This is a fairly new market, the Canon 6D and Nikon D600 qualify. These are very similar to the 2nd tier but with a few less features. These cameras will take photos every bit as nice as the two top teirs because the sensors used are on the same level. $2000+
4. Professional/High end APS-C(crop) cameras. This is the top end of the "consumer" range. Like the top end of the professional market these cameras are often geared towards sports shooters, with high frame rates and complex AF systems for tracking moving subjects. This is the Canon 7D, the Nikon D7000, Sony A77, etc. $1000+
5. Mid-low range APS-C DSLR cameras. Pretty much everything else here. Very good cameras generally but usually lacking basic ergonomic things like dual control dials that would make them poor choices for professional work.
You can also pick up a slightly older model of some of these higher teirs, like the Canon 5D MKII, Nikon D700, Sony A900, etc for under $2000. These cameras are a few years old now but were the top of the second teir when they came out, and will still produce very very good images.
If you don't know the difference between a fullframe or APS-C camera, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference in the photos you take either. The basic differences is: with equivalent lenses a fullframe camera can make the background a little more blurry (which is great for portraits, subject isolation) and FF cameras generally will provide 1-2 stops better high ISO performance, which means less noise when it gets dark.
As far as buying lenses over cameras. This is absolutely 100% what you need to do. Just think about it, if you buy a $3000 camera but have no money left to spend on good lenses, what are you going to do? Buy a $100 lens to put on your $3000 camera? If you're shooting weddings professionally, in the Canon system you're going to be looking at Canon L lenses, many of which cost $1000+ PER LENS. So you can't blow your budget on a camera body. A camera body without lenses is useless, an expensive camera body with a poor lens is worse if virtually every situation than a cheap camera with a fantastic lens. You also need to consider backup cameras and lenses, you can't shoot a wedding with just one camera and one lens, so that is a big budget concern as well.
Yeah I guess we've got to make some compromises. Or I just have to buy something and let her work from there
Anyway, much appreciated, buddy.
Now some more photography education time
so I've been playing with my new DSLR for a few months now (Canon 600D/T3i + 50mm f/1.8 II) and I'm loving it so far!
My flickr : http://www.flickr.com/photos/79437694@N06/
Still, I'm such a noob when it comes to equipment...
A couple of frustrations I have been facing, though, are when I want to capture large stuff in small rooms, and the lack of zoom. I'm slowly getting ready to buy a new lens. I've done my "homework" and came up with this lens that seems to be what I'm looking for (a.k.a. a wide angle lens with a small zoom ?)
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EW8074/ref=s9_simh_gw_p421_d4_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-3&pf_rd_r=053438S8M63DYX6RT266&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938811&pf_rd_i=507846"]Amazon.com: Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras: Camera & Photo[/ame]
I also considered the Tamron one (for its ridiculously low price) but I REALLY like the IS feature on the Canon version (could be VERY useful to shoot without tripod in low light or simply shooting movies).
I'm looking for thoughts and potentially people who have been using that specific lens.
(Sorry if this lens has already been mentioned in this thread, I haven't had a chance to go through the whole thing)
If you need something with IS you might consider the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS for $620 currently: http://www.adorama.com/SG1750EOS.html
I would have a very hard time paying over a grand for a fast standard zoom.
One thing to remember about IS: It will only help with camera shake, you will still need to raise your shutter speed when shooting in low light with moving objects(ie: your friends at a bar). So IS may give you 3 or so stops with static subjects, it doesn't do anything for movement, you're still going to need to crank the ISO in those cases. So depending on what you need the lens for, IS/OS may not make much of a real difference*.
* Though I love having it with all of my lenses, even primes, on my Alpha. =P
On the other hand, IS can be cool for things like purposeful motion blur of a subway train going by with a slow shutter speed and no tripod, a very hard shot to take without IS or some sort of stabilization.
If 'IS' is important then there is the tamron 17-50 VC version for similar price and I think it also give about 3 stops as well.
While Full-Frame bodies have their own set of advantages, so do APS-C (crop sensor) bodies.
Crop-sensors will give you a better pixel density than its full-frame counterparts.
Say you have a 24MP full-frame sensor, and a 24MP Crop-sensor, the reach you can achieve with your lenses will be greater on the crop-sensor. There is not a single full-frame body out there that can achieve the same pixel density as a good APS-C.
Essentially, you multiply the focal length of your lense by 1.5x (This if for Nikon, Canon has a 1.6x crop factor I think). So, say you have a 50mm lense, on an APS-C body, it is the equivalent of 75mm. 300mm becomes 450mm, and so on.
Now, you said your girlfriend mostly wants to shoot events, in which case full-frame would be the better choice. But you need to remember that FF bodies and lenses are significantly more expensive than APS-C.
If you're interested in shooting wildlife, the advantages of APS-C really shine.
Yeah honestly for weddings I wouldn't suggest APS-C, ff is going to give the DOF control and high ISO noise advantage that a wedding photographer is going to want/need.
That said I have shot a couple weddings with APS-C gear, not professionally mind you but its totally doable.
A decent APS-C with a 50mm/1.4 gets you very far. I've done some professional-ish portraits for some friends recently and had very good results with this combo(and a few more lenses but this was mainly what was used). A FF + 85/1.4/1.2 would be better of course.
As far as crop factor/lens price goes, yeah APS-C gives you more reach(the generally FF have high MP so you can get some of it back by cropping - D800 esp), yeah some of the equivalent lenses are cheaper(like 50/1.4 vs 85/1.2/1.4, though the EF 85/1.8 is very good) but then you're more limited with fast wides. To get the same results as a 35/1.4 on FF you would need a 24/1.0 lens which nobody makes. A 24/1.4 on FF is equiv to 16/1.0 and there's really nothing anywhere near that on APS-C. So if you're after subject isolation with wides FF is your only option.
Since I tend to always shoot at the longer end of focal lengths (50-300mm range), APS-C is my sensor of choice. I carry one Ultra-wide angle lense (11-16mm F/2.8 ) for my wide angle needs. Fortunately, all my lenses work on FF as well, so if ever I decide to migrate to full-frame, my lenses won't be useless.
It really all depends on what kind of photography you're into.
Tamron 11-18mm, 10-24mm,
Sigma 8-16mm, 10-20mm (two versions)
Tokina 11-16mm
+ the first party choices
You can't really get wider than the Sigma 8-16mm with FF(Sigma 12-24mm FF lens is equiv).
The 8-16 was temping, but you can't use filters on it.
Yeah thats the only reason I haven't bough the 8-16mm yet(I have the 11-18mm Tamron). Though I think I will bite the bullet when I buy an A900 and pick up the Sigma 12-24mm too at some point so I have a super super super wide on FF and still a regular UW on APS-C. No filters with that one though either fdgdfgdfgf, but honestly I use filters with my 11-18mm very rarely.
Also: http://www.benjacobsenphoto.com/2010/gear/filters-for-lenses-that-cant-take-filters/
These are all film cameras, you understand that right? They may seem cheap, but once you add in the cost of film, and processing, you'll be over the cost of a DSLR after a dozen rolls.
If you're specifically after an AF 35mm Film SLR I can recommend a few:
Canon Elan 7(n/e fine too) e = eye focus
Canon Elan II/IIe
Minolta 650si
Minolta 700si
Otherwise, you can pick up a used DSLR in the $300-500 range and get something quite decent these days. Like a used Canon T1i , Canon 40D, Nikon D80, D90, Sony A560/A580, etc.
Back when I first started, I bought a cheap 40$ tripod, and told myself "as long as it holds my camera, that's all that matters, right?". That same day, I realized I'd made a huge mistake, and noticed how flimsy it was within the first 20 shots I'd taken.
You'll appreciate a lightweight tripod when you're traveling too. What's neat about the Velbon tripod I got, was that it came with a weight bag that attaches between the three legs, allowing you to place rocks or other heavy objects, to help weigh the tripod down, and really make it as steady as possible, even during windy days. I'm pretty sure you can make your own, though.
Hope this helped.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/738078-REG/Benro_A2691TB1_A_2691_Travel_Angel_Alum.html
http://www.adorama.com/SLSPM2GM.html?gclid=CPGvru3FsbUCFe9aMgod3W8A0w
This thing is tiny, it folds up to about 14" and weights 1.75 pounds. You can easily attach it to the bottom of your camera bag and forget it is there. IMO, anything larger than this and I never actually take it anywhere. I wouldn't feel safe with it and a 3 pound telephoto lens, and I probably wouldn't use it for 30 second exposures either, but casual on the go tripod use its great. It also doesn't extend very high at only 43.3" inches.
There was actually another one similar to this in the $130 range that has similar specs but extended past 50"s, but I don't recall the name of it though.
But really, light weight and inexpensive are super subjective, as someone has already suggested a $300 tripod, and someone else a 5 pound tripod. What do you consider light weight and inexpensive?
But I am still really learning how to use my camera and only have the 18-55 and 55-250 lenses which are not that heavy. Going tow wait to buy more lenses/need a more sturdy tripod until I really know how to use my camera well as just adding new lenses wont make me better at photography.
Thanks for the tips everyone
Thoughts on this camera? Seems like a decent deal. Any reason not to go SONY?
As someone who shoots Sony cameras, the biggest reason not to go Sony is the use electronic viewfinders in all of their recent cameras. I would really suggest getting your hands on the camera and trying the viewfinder with a comparably priced Canon and Nikon as well. I've got an EVF in my OMD and OVFs in my Sony A580 and A900, both have pros/cons, but some EVFs really make me feel nauseous.
Biggest reasons to go Sony are probably image stabilization in the camera body(so all lenses are IS lenses, even primes, yay!) and large stock of vintage Minolta Maxxum lenses that can be purchased cheaply.
What do you plan on doing with the camera?
Nah just typical beginner stuff; people, landscapes, trips, etc. Coming from point and shoots, I would be more inclined to use the screen instead of the viewfinder anyways. Is the included lens worth much cop or will I be better off maybe just trying to find a body?
Always thought I'd go Canon when I finally invested in a DSLR but that camera is a very good deal. If there was a Canon in a very similar price range with specs of equal quality I might consider that.
EDIT: Decent video would be nice though.
http://www.adorama.com/ICAT3IK.html
http://www.adorama.com/ICAT3I.html
Its not the latest model(T4i) but its very similar.
Oh another reason TO go Sony. Sony's live view focus is miles ahead of all the other camera makers. This is because of the SLT/EVF, Canon's live view af is really horrible(and nikon's and pentax's), so if you plan on using the LCD a lot, Sony is a good choice.
The kit lens is fine for a beginner, I would say get one, as the cost difference is usually less than $100. Its sometimes good to have a zoom, but basically its a mediocre, slow(which means bad for low light) general purpose lens. At worst a kit lens will help you decide what sort of lenses you will want to go with in the future.
A beginner kit of quality lenses for a Sony Alpha would be:
Minolta 50mm 1.7 $80, or Sony 50mm 1.8 $150 new - for portraits and extreme lowlight
Minolta 70-210mm 4.0 "beercan" $150 - used, a great telephoto zoom
Something like the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is a fantastic kit lens replacement, a wonderful general purpose zoom with fast 2.8 aperture which is much better for lowlight, for about $300 used.
For landscapes, an ultra wide angle zoom is really useful, interiors, architecture as well. A used Tamron 11-18mm for about $300 is a bargain.
If you've added it all up, you'll start to see that the real expense is going to be lenses, so depending on your budget, even $600 may be expensive for a body only. You can pick up a Sony A57 for $500 body only right now. http://www.adorama.com/ISOSLTA57.html
Used, you can find one even cheaper. Or a A55 used. I would personally recommend buying a model or two older, or used body only and pick up a Tamron 16-50/2.8 instead of the kit lens. This, way more than the latest model camera body, will actually improve your photos/allow you to take photos in more situations.
As far as video goes, generally the Sony cameras do pretty good video, similar to live view focusing the Sony SLTs offer much better AF in video mode than Canons. Though people will be quick to tell you that "all the pros use manual focus anyway" - its not really that relevant for a beginner.
The Sony A580 is also a very very good model that I personally have, its the last/best model they made before they switched to the electronic viewfinder. Though this model does not do AF in video mode.
So, tell me what features you find attractive on the Sony A58 vs something like the Canon T3i/T4i.
From what I've read reviews wise, with the T3i/4i's, you really get what you pay for, but the A58 seems to be surprisingly good for the money?
A lot of what you've said is going over my newbie head but thanks for the advice. I'll definitely look around at the A57's specs/video quality and try to decide. From what I've read of the budget canons, their picture quality leaves a lot to be desired (what's produced by the actual body, in any case. Poor ISO handling etc.)
I'm surprised at the price of even used lenses heh. Are canon lenses cheaper or are they all about the same? I know it all comes down to spending the most amount on lenses anyways. We have pretty good 'cash price'
The A58 for instance is actually a downgrade in certain features from the A57, because its actually a product merge of the A37 and A57 lines at a lower price point than the A57. So for instance, the A58 has a worse rear LCD screen(lower resolution, less articulation), lower burst shooting rate, plastic lens mount, etc, though it looks like it will have a better sensor in it.
Canon's sensors may be a little behind Sony's, but not to the point where its going to make a huge, or even noticable difference to a beginner. The fact of the matter is that a 5 year old DSLR, from any manufacturer, is going to be miles above any point and shoot or cell phone or whatever you've been shooting with.
Here is a comparison of the A57, A580 and T3i:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/798|0/%28brand%29/Sony/%28appareil2%29/692|0/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28appareil3%29/685|0/%28brand3%29/Sony
For low light/high iso, the Canon is equivalent to the A57. Though the A57 has better dynamic range. The A580, despite being a 3 or so year old model at this point, is better than both of them however. The A580 has the same sensor as the Nikon D7000, and Pentax K5, which are $1200-ish cameras(or were, both have been replaced now). The reason the A57 is worse than the A580(though they share basically the same sensor) is because of the SLT mirror in the newer Sony cameras, which allows it to have the EVF, and better AF in live view and video mode(the A580 does not have AF in video mode).
Lenses... Lenses are expensive, the ones I listed here are very good value for the money. Good lenses are in the $300-600 range and great lenses in the $500-2000 range. Depending on how serious you're going to get in photography, buying lenses can become a very expensive hobby, and you will likely spend way way more money on lenses than camera bodies. Canon has similar lenses to the ones I listed for similar prices. The lenses I listed are very good value for the money, each are about the cheapest you can get for a decent lens in that class/type of lens.
Now starting off, you certainty don't need to go out and buy 4 lenses, Its good to stick with the kit lens until you have an idea of what you want. My suggestions here are for typical types of shooting that you will want to do that your kit lens won't be great at.
This weekend I used my recently bought second-hand Sony NEX-5N for the first time. The reason i bought it next to my larger DSLR is that taking that one along on my motorcycle is cumbersome + I can only shoot through the viewfinder, which is impossible without taking my helmet off.
It's actually much better than I expected:
-Low light ISO is decent, having 25600 instead of 3200 is handy.
-The controls are pretty good, I almost feel bad saying it but they might even be faster than my DSLR's controls...
-There's no viewfinder, so it's all Liveview, but to my surprise this makes shooting full manual much easier (something i never really did so far). Just instantly seeing the results is pretty good.
-It does decent video too!
All in all perfect for my goal. Still have to go over all the pics from this weekend, but they should be fine quality-wise.
Test shot 1
Test shot 2
The only thing I struggled with was the low resolution of the display, since it doesn't come with an analog viewfinder, like Xoliul mentioned. But it's nothing you can't work around using the focus assist feature.
Been looking at the OM-D's lately, love the primes you can get for m4/3.
I've got the EM1 and EM5, though I would probably recommend getting the EM10 if you're looking to start a system with M43rds (or the Panasonic GX7). When you combine one of these cameras with a few of the small primes, or one of the pancake zooms, your setup will be a lot smaller than even the smaller DSLR kits, plus something like an OMD or GX7 has a lot more/better external controls than an A55 for instance. I used to shoot with Sony DSLRs (A580 and A900) and I found myself using the EM5 (which I picked up as a smaller alternative to those DSLRs) so much more that my M43rds system has replaced my DSLR system entirely.
When you get into the better lenses, the cost can be a bit higher, but I don't mind as I'm happy to pay for very, very good lenses that are very small, which means I will actually take them out and use them.
The Fuji X system is also getting quite good these days, especially the XT1 and some of the primes like the 23/1.4 and 56/1.2, but it still tends to be a bit larger overall than M43rds, and does not have in-body image stabilization, nor are the cameras as mature/responsive as M43rds bodies(esp AF), on the other hand it produces slightly better image quality due to the larger sense, so its a bit of give and take.
You might find this thread useful as well: http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128289
Thanks for the info EQ. Yeah the primes seem really great and also look really well constructed with the metal finishes.
I've never really minded paying more for something that is built better and made to last, I've always taken good care of my stuff as well.
How are the primes with filters? Can they take Lee filters system for example? That's one of the main things I haven't looked to much into.
I have the Lee polariser which is quite big, actually quite massive when compared to all of my lenses for my A55, I can't see this working on m4/3 systems.
I guess the screw on Filters are better suited to the smaller bodies of m4/3.
It does look a little bigger as well, but I'm sure still smaller than DSLR's.
So in the EM1's favor:
Better ergonomics, nice big(for mirrorless) and very comfortable grip, physical buttons/switches for virtually every main function
PDAF on sensor for better AF while tracking moving subjects
Better weather sealing (when used with a sealed lens, EM5 has very good sealing too, EM10 has no sealing).
Better buffer, which means more continuous shooting before slowing down
Super awesome fantastic HDR mode that snaps 7 shots in 2EV increments with one shutter press (best I've seen in any camera). This is fantastic for HDR/360 pano stuff.
Bigger electronic viewfinder, best EVF I've seen in a camera, no longer makes me miss optical VF (live exposure preview is a big benefit with EVFs)
1/8000th shutter vs 1/4000 so you can open up fast lenses in bright light for more DOF control
IBIS is better, its crazy good (I can get down to 1.3 second shutter speed hand held with wider lenses, but all 3 have very good IBIS.
Image quality is basically the same, so unless you need the more advanced level features, its hard to recommend the EM1 over the 5 or 10 due to the price, you can pick up a couple good lenses for the price difference. Really, its best to invest money into lenses, they retain value much better and will give you more improvement in your photos than a new/different camera will. Though I do really love this camera.
One of the biggest issues I had with the EM5 was the large focus points, which made the camera often focus on a background element instead of the subject. However, this was fixed in a firmware update, now you can make the focus box smaller, though the EM1 has more/smaller focus points so its even better in this regard. Some of the buttons look to be a little better placed on the EM10 vs the EM5, despite being a little smaller, I think if I was buying new I would probably get a 10 over the 5 unless weather sealing was a big need.
I'll do a little more reading on it, the EM1 does sound really tempting though.
Np, I would start by figuring out which lenses you're going to need, put together a budget and then see if you can fit the EM1 into that budget.
If you want some lens suggestions, let me know how you plan to use it, eg what sorts of photography you tend to do, how much like you generally work in, weather you prefer zooms or primes, etc.
Generally prefer landscape stuff, so I was looking at the wide angle lens like the Oly 12mm 2.0.
I would be nice to have a portrait lens in there as well, so maybe the Oly 45mm 1.8 would do until I could get the Oly 75mm 1.8
Definatley prefer the primes over zooms.
Ok cool, yeah I can highly recommend both the 12mm and the 45mm, if you're not going to pick up a zoom you may want to consider one of the 25mms (oly 1.8 or pana 1.4 which I have - a little bigger and more expensive but 2/3rds stop faster) as well, but I think the 12 and 45 as a starter kit would give you a lot to work with. For landscapes I like the 12 or 25, and 45 is very good for portraits.
The 75/1.8 is also fantastic, really only negative for it is the price, its basically a flawless lens.
If you do city scapes/interiors and need a really wide lens, look into the Panasonic 7-14mm or the Olympus 9-18mm. The Panasonic is significantly wider, but doesn't take filters and has some serious purple lens flare issues on Olympus cameras that lack a strong UV filter on the sensor (I have it and love it anyway, despite the flare issue). The 9-18mm is smaller, cheaper, takes filters, but 9mm is significantly less wide than 7mm.
When I go out shooting for the day I usually take 3-4 of the following lenses with me, depending on what I'm doing/where I'm going: 7-14/4, 12/2, 25/1.4, 45/1.8, 75/1.8.
If you're looking at a standard zoom, the Olympus 12-40/2.8 is very, very good, but fairly large and expensive (though you can get it in a kit with the EM1). The Panasonic 12-35/2.8 is similarly good, a bit smaller and lighter as well, though it has less range and doesn't focus as close (the 12-40 focuses to 1:3 which is pseudo macro territory).
The Panasonic 12-32 3.5-5.6 is also very good for a a kit lens, and is tiny and weighs absolutely nothing. Its a bit expensive for what it is though, but again it weighs like 70g so you can always have it with you if you want to run out in good light with a basic zoom. Look on eBay for used ones taken out of GM1 kits. Similarly, if you go with an EM10, pick up the kit with the 14-42 pancake EZ lens, these tiny lenses make the overall package so small.
Been looking at the prices here and for some reason the black versions of the M.Zuiko primes are commending a premium over the silver versions.
Not that it matters that much, but it would be nice have matching camera and body, considering I haven't seen the silver EM-1 for sale here.
On a side note, what's your opinion on the Sony A7/R? Seems like these cameras are really focused at taking on both the DSLR and CSC market in one go. Full Frame sensors in small bodies of camera like the OMD range.
The lenses still look as big as ever, but I guess this is the nature of FF lenses.
Yes unfortunately this is the case, in some cases like the 12/2 the black was only released as an overpriced "special edition", the 45 and 75 you should be able to find for the same price new, but used the black versions sell for more.
I don't think the A7/r cameras are there yet. I think they were really rushed to get to market, so usability suffers quite a bit, slow/bad AF, poor responsiveness, really slow burst rate, poor buffer, and very limited lens selection.
The 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 primes are very, very good, but you pretty much need to shoot them on a tripod wit the A7R to really eek out that extra degree of performance for it to make sense as a system. If you shoot landscapes with a 50mm-ish lens and print absolutely massive sizes it would be a decent choice. Its certainly priced right for how fabulous the sensor is.
Lens size comes down to basic physics, a FF sensor is 4 times larger than M43rds, so you get about 1.5-2 stops better ISO performance, better dynamic range, but the lenses are going to be 2x or more the size, and the F4 24-70mm while not being that much bigger than the 2.8 zooms for M43rds, is 1 stop slower and significantly worse optically, so you have to make compromises to design small lenses for that system.
When you get into telephoto lenses you're hitting the basic laws of physics. A 70-200mm lens for nex FE mount is roughly the same size as a 70-200mm lens for a Canon DSLR. On the other hand the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 is absolutely tiny in comparison. So you're really not gaining much in the way of size advantage. The 35/2.8 is a very compact lens, but the Oly 17/1.8 is about the same size and gives you very similar optically/DOF performance and lets you use a much more mature system.
I think the Sony FF mirrorless system may be awesome in a few years, but right now it's still pretty half baked. Sony has a tendency to release many more camera bodies than lenses, so it may be a solid 5 years before it has a relatively complete lens selection.
Honestly if Sony would have released a more mature A7 with better usability, IBIS, with relatively compact 35/2 and 85/2 lenses I would have bought it on launch as I was really excited about it, but I'm pretty disappointed with the actual product.
Again the Fuji X system I think is a much better choice if you want something with better image quality than M43rds and can handle a little extra size/weight. To me, the latest M43rds sensors are at the point where they are simply good enough for all but the most challenging work (low light sports for example). Easily as good as sensors Canon has been using in their APS-C DSLRs (better dynamic range even).
I do like the idea of FF in smaller bodies like these, although like you say the physics of lenses will always keep them from being more portable.
Plus I'm not that yet good enough were I could warrant a FF camera.
I agree the problem with Sony is it releases too many camera with not enough lenses to support the bodies. It'd good that there doing things like the RX1 and A7 and trying different stuff, but the A mount I feel doesn't get enough love. Good thing we have all those old Minolta lenses to fill in the gaps of A mount.
Yeah honestly, I love my A900, but its too damned big and heavy to ever leave the house. I can get shallower DOF with it, but I end up stopping down just to get *enough* in focus or to avoid PDAF focusing errors to the point that I'm not really even using what the camera is really good at. I was never really happy enough with the A99 to buy it, IMO if I'm going to use a camera with an EVF it might as well be a small mirrorless setup that I can easily take out.
I just picked up the Panasonic 42.5/1.2, which is sort of crazy expensive, but now I can do ultra shallow DOF when I need it. So my A900 and Sigma 85/1.4 will go on eBay. I already sold off the rest of my A-mount gear and I'm glad i did it, prices there continue to drop and drop as people worry that Sony will eventually drop A mount support entirely in favor of E mount.
Both have their pros and cons, like every other system, but I really like were both systems are heading.
Gonna go to a store next week and get a feel for them see which one I like the most.
DSLR will go on ebay along with my A mount lenses. Probably sell the filters I have as well to put some fund towards more lenses.
Can't see me going back to DSLR anytime soon.
If you don't care about IBIS, and want some fantastic primes and an awesome sensor, the XT1 +23/1.4 and 56/1.2.... Really can't go wrong.
I owned the XE1 for a short bit and it was a pretty quirky camera, not nearly as quick in operation as my EM5, though the XT1 is supposedly a decent improvement over it. Overall size/weight is a bit larger than M43rds stuff, but still smaller than your average DSLR.
X-T1 seems to have some great primes, 14, 23, 35, 56 with supposedly a fast ultra-wide coming soon. Love that they have aperture rings on them as well.