Yes, however you can't use Olympus Zuiko and M42 Takumars(and many other M42 lenses) on Nikon bodies without adaptors that require corrective glass and reduce image quality, and both can be found for good prices, often less than Nikon MF glass.
Canon can use:
Olympus OM
Pentax/Universal screw mount M42
Pentax K
Nikon
Leica R
I have decided to sell my Nikon d90 ... and I think I can get a canon 5d mark I or the Nikon d300 does anybody has experience with any of those? I know the 5d mark I is very old byt it looks like it has everything I would be looking for in a camera and it is full frame The d300 has 51 AF points and this is the only part that makes me think getting this one instead of the 5d.... I am a little bit disappointed of the D90 autofocusing especially if I am a bit further away from my subject. Lets say I am going to shoot a full body portrait with my 50 mm lens ... i have so meny shots that the autofocus is just not there .....
any thoughts .... ?
If you have a large collection of Nikon lenses, I would probabbly stick with Nikon and get the D300. However, and I dont know what the price range on a D300 is, but if you're looking at comparable prices between the two, the 5D being full frame would be the obvious choice IMO. But i'm a Canon guy too, so bias etc.
I haven't used a 5D, but I have played around a bit with a 1Ds Mark I, which is a huge beast of a camera, wonder feel and features, beautiful big viewfinder, however just simply massive. The 5D seems to be the reasonable equivalent of the 1D, and really the sane choice for a pro body these days.
Looking at prices a bit, a better direct comparison would probably be a 7D, just some quick glances it looks like the Nikon has a bit better ISO performance, but the canon has more resolution(so the higher per-pixel noise performance is moot), and a really nice video mode. 7D does 100-12800 ISO, whereas the 300D does 100-6400.
The 5D Mark I does have a max ISO of 3200, which is pretty limited to say the least. But i do a lot of low light stuff, this may not be a problem for everyone.
At the end of the day i would say: Full frame? Get a 5d, Crop? Toss up between D300 and 7D.
[edit] Looks like used 5D's start at $800 used, which sounds fan-fucking-tastic. And a 5D Mark II used is about the same as a 7D/D300s New, in the $1600-2000 range
Thanks EQ .
I found the 5d and d300 for about 1000$ bouth ..... I never really had to use ISO more than 800 or may be it is because the image quality gets horrible on the cameras i have got so far. I dont have any other lenses except the 50 mm 1.8 so this does not meter.
I had the chance to play with 1d mark I as well and .... yeaa it is a beast and it is heavy as hell , but the images compared to my nikon d90 were sooo much crisper. I need to exercise if I am getting one of them. I could find this one for 1000 $ as well second hand but for now I think the 5d is attracting my attention the most....also because my friend is using canon and we could use the same lens because neither her or me use our cameras every single day and if we do we are at the same location and shooting together so that way she can get the 50mm and I can get the 85 and done deal
Such a difficult decision to make...... if only the focus on that d90 was working a touch better I would not think about getting new camera.
Edit: oo about the 7d ... this is a lot more expensive and I dont care about the video... never even turned it on on my d90
Oh well if thats the case, go canon, get the 5D because its full frame, get the 50mm 1.8 for $100, and look at the 85mm 1.8(same crop as the 50mm 1.8 on your D90) or the 100mm 2.0 either for about $325.
Unless of course you're used to that crop 50 range, and dont really require much more. If you're not doing a lot of wide angle stuff, a crop body isnt a bad thing. One of the biggest reasons to get a full frame body is because a 28mm lens(EF 28mm 2.8, $175) is actually a wide lens, not ~45mm normal lens equivalent crop.
Me personally, I would rather use a 50mm 1.8 as a "normal lens" because of the flattering perspective of that range, my Sigma 30mm 1.4 "normal" lens isn't too nice to some people's faces! And of course the massive perspective distortion at 18mm(28mm equiv) range. But now you're dropping $300+ on a proper portrait lens as well.
Now of course, if you get a 85mm lens, you have the added benifit of the even more pleasing perspective distortion of a proper portait lens, which is a good thing, along with the EF 85mm 1.8 being an excellent lens.
That said, adding the 35mm f/2 (or sigma 30mm 1.4, or if you really love 35mm like I do, Canon 35mmL) and the 85mm 1.8 will give you every lens you need unless you're a sports journalist or bird photographer.
Thanks again guys All I want to shoot is portraits I don't care about the wide angle lens. I know the 50 mm on a crop body was just a bit too long for indoor, which means it will be perfect on a FF body and one day when I have money ( which is probably never going to happen ) I just need to get the 85mm 1.8 and I am done
So I guess I just need to sell the d90 and I am all set. Also my friend has the 50 mm 1.4 I can't wait to barrow them
Thanks ocne again for your opinions guys really appreciated.
That said, adding the 35mm f/2 (or sigma 30mm 1.4, or if you really love 35mm like I do, Canon 35mmL) and the 85mm 1.8 will give you every lens you need unless you're a sports journalist or bird photographer.
Sigma 30mm 1.4 is crop only, which is a shame and means I'll have to sell mine when I upgrade to full frame, but thats ok, i'll probabbly get a 50mm 1.4 at that point anyway. And then either the 28mm 1.8 or 35 2. Resell prices on the 30mm is just slightly less than what I paid for it new($375 compared to $415) so not a big deal yet.
So I just bought a Finepix S5 Pro (which is based on a D200 body). I got the 18-55 f3.5-5.6 along with it for 30 euros but I can tell straight away it's pretty shitty compared to the two lenses I have. Been playing a bit with it, it's fun how right away it's clear I can do so much more with this than the previous cam.
I wanna go get a 50mm or 35mm f1.8 tomorrow. I'm wondering, would a 35mm DX be as widely applicable as 35mm with crop ?
35mm = 52.5mm on Nikon(1.5) crop, so it would be a very good general purpose lens, but you should also get the 50mm if you're interested in portraiture at all, as a 35mm lens is too wide to be particularly attractive for portraiture.
You can also find the Nikon 28mm 2.8 AF for $100-150 used on ebay, which is a steal if you want something a little wider than the 35mm. You'll probably want the 35mm and 50mm at some point, but to start off, i'de suggest the 50mm and a 28mm, because of the cheap ass price of both(not that the Nikon 35mm 1.8 is expensive) and the wider range you'll get out of these two lenses. The 28mm will function as your wider lens, you'll use it for landscapes, architectural, crowds, and anywhere your 50mm is too tight to use. The 50mm will function as a tight general purpose lens, when you want to be a bit more close and personal, when you want to use DOF more creatively, when you want to take pictures of single people close up or small groups from a moderate distance, and when you have low light.
The 35mm is a blend of both of these lenses, if you just had to buy ONE, it would probably be a good choice, but you'll likely want both in the future, and I would always suggest a 50mm to start with. However, when you consider the cost of a 28mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8 could be about $250, the 35mm alone doesn't look that attractive. I am not a Nikon guy however, so this 28mm 2.8 lens could = shit, doubtful tho, as most primes are intrinsically good lenses to have, unless convenience is your main concern.
The real important thing to remember when thinking crop is that a wide angle is always a wide angle lens, even on a crop body. This means the DOF and perspective distortion properties will stay the same, and when someone says a 35mm = 52.5mm, all that is referring to is section of the lens the sensor sees, not that it transforms any of the lens's native characteristics.
Wide angles exaggerate proportions, the wide the more far apart relationships between objects will seem. Wide angle lenses naturally reach infinity much sooner, this means that at at a shorter distance(relative to a "normal" 50mm lens or portrait/telephoto) you'll hit the point where regardless of your FStop, you're going to have a very wide depth of feild. So wide angle lenses are harder to use for creative depth of feild stuff, like isolating the subject from the background, as you have to be closer the the subject(over 10 feet away on a 28mm is going to be pretty much infinite DOF). However, you can always get closer to your subject with a wide angle lens as well, so there is a trade off there.
28mm and 35mm lenses are "wide angles" although the 35mm barely qualifies as such, 40-60mm range is considered a "normal" lens, 70-100 is "portrait" anything above 100 is a telephoto of some sort, and anything below 24mm is an "ultra wide", and generally below 14mm is a fisheye, but a few zooms and primes have been made in this range that arent fish-eye.
Now with your 18-55mm lens, if you read up what I wrote on my canon lens, consider this lens a 18mm 3.5 lens. Do not even think about using this lens for other ranges, cheap primes can be found that do a *much much* better job, like the 28mm, 35mm and 50mm. However at the 18mm range, you will spend a lot of money to get a good prime. SO, a 18mm 3.5 cheapo lens is a bargain for 30 euros, you'll end up using this when you want really wide shots, landscape, cramped interiors(with enough light of course, or a tripod!), etc.
Sorry if i'm repeating some of this from earlier posts, just a few important points I feel are good to hammer home.
That said (and all of it true) portraits do not have to be closeups of faces. It will take you a while to figure out your shooting style, but I'd say 80% of my portraits are with a 35mm lens on a full frame camera. (meaning it's actually wide angle)
Absolutely, and understanding how the lens works is vital. You can take photos of people with any sort of lens, wide angles can also be used to exaggerate proportions in very specific and artful ways, for instance pulling the lankiness out of a skinny model, very common in fashion photography, or making weird, strangely proportioned people look even weirder.
Now for more subtle type of portraits, with a wide angle lens like a 35mm doing portraiture, getting a little distance between you and the subject helps, as the closer you are the more exaggerated the proportions will end up being. With Ben's 35mm here, you can see he has some good distance between him and his subjects, which helps to minimize the negative aspects of perspective distortion. A 35mm lens while technically a wide angle lens, is the most subtle wide angle you can get, which makes it a very good general purpose lens, esp on full frame.
His 2nd shot down creates a very cool "infinity" type effect because of the relationship that the trees have, something that would look much more compressed and "closer" on a 50mm or 85mm lens.
Just bought the 50mm f/1.8, got a good price new at 145.
Don't think i'll be getting a 28 prime soon though, as i have the 28-105 for that angle. Same for using the 18-55 just for 18mm, I think I'd prefer the Sigma 18-35 there.
Btw thanks for all the advice Earthquake and others, really cool I can also get this at Polycount
I could use an advice too about all this camera gear thingy.
At the moment I have a Canon 450D with a 50mm 1.8 II and a Sigma 18-125mm 3.5-5.6(no is, no usm or anything) and I've been thinking about getting me a 30mm prime since I find the 50mm on my crop sensor to be very limiting at times and my Sigma lens image quality just doesnt cut it most of the times. Since I'm living on an interns salary(meaning I have 1400 dollars a month to live for, and 450 of them already go to paying rent) I have a hard time choosing wether I should opt for a new camera body(like a 550d or the new 60d), or that 30mm... Any ideas?
A 550D or 60D isn't going to provide a huge upgrade, unless you want to do video. The 450D is a totally capable camera and likely isn't "holding you back" when it comes to taking pictures, so I wouldn't consider an upgrade here.
Now, for the 30mm ish range you have a few choices
Canon 28mm 2.8 $175
Canon 35mm 2.0 $225
Canon 28mm 1.8 $375
Sigma 30mm 1.4 $425(NEW, all other prices are used) - This is the lens I went with, upgrading from the 28mm 2.8. Buy it new, this lens has focusing issues and you will likely need to send it and your camera body to sigma for calibration, which is free other than $10 to ship it to them, and mine was back in about 7 days(amazing fast), and works great now.
Canon 35mm 1.4L $1200 Looking at the price of this lens, the Sigma 30mm at 1.4 is a bargain even with the issues.
So I would say, $200 range, 28mm 2.8 or 35mm 2.0 get the 35 if you want a little faster, get the 28 if you want a little wider.
For $400, the 28mm 1.8 or 30mm 1.4, get 1.4 if you want the speed, and the 1.8 if you dont want to deal with Sigma's service center.
Hey,
I was wondering if you could help me out with some camera's....
I wanted to get a good p&s to take into concerts for both stills and videos. It'd have to be capable of handling loud volume up to some degree as well as taking decent quality in low-light.
I've looked around there seems to be the s95 which apparantly can't zoom in when taking videos? and doesn't do audio very well but its quality is good. What could be some other options?
My budget is $400 MAX (obviously the cheaper, the better),
thanks
Sam
And my response:
Hey, first off, feel free to post in the camera thread, it doesnt have to be strictly SLR advice. Now saying that, my first instinct when hearing someone is willing the shell out $400 for a P&S is: BUY AN SLR!!
You'll spend more upfront on a dSLR, but possibly less over time. A dSLR is a good investment, it holds its value in resale much better than a P&S, so when you decide to sell your camera in 2-3 years, you'll make back a large chunk of that initial cost, and be able to put that into upgrades. Also you can simply upgrade the body and keep your lens(es). Plus, an SLR simply blows a P&S out of the water, even the best P&S compared to the worst dSLR, you'll get better flexibility and image quality, as more creative control. The tiny sensors in P&S cameras mean not only do you get more noise and worse image quality, but you get wide depth of field, which means its much harder to do artistic DOF shots with nice blurry backgrounds.
Now, if you absolutely NEED to have a P&S, the Canon S90 and S95 are said to be very good. I'm not really an expert on Audio/Video recording, and dont know the specifics of the S90/95's features, but for loud audio, you will likely want something capable of using an external mic, like the Canon 550D. I dont think the built in audio on either a dSLR or P&S is going to be high quality.
One thing to note, at the wide end the S90/95 is a 2.0 lens, but at the long end its a very slow 6.3 lens, so even if you could zoom in you'd get very poor low light results out of it in those ranges.
So the main conclusion to pull from video quality here is, the 550D will offer a very much "high end" film look, and the s95 while excellent for a P&S, is still a point and shoot at heart, and really isn't going to give you much improvement in the "look at fee" of your video, only really improvements in noise performance and low light shooting over a more standard P&S.
Now this gets very subjective and depends on your shooting style and what you intend to take videos of of course, if you want wide shots with DOF clear into the distance, a P&S type camera would be better, if you want more artistic control over your focus, a more "filmic" look with the ability to isolate your subject from the fore/background, and SLR is going to be what you want.
I dunno, I think it would be a pretty hard argument to make that the 35L is 3x as good as the 30mm 1.4. I'm certainly not going to say the 30mm 1.4 is a better lens, but I do believe its a much better value. The 35L is your only choice if you want a fast(1.4) wide on full frame tho!
Curse you samyang! I actually got really fucking excited looking at Samyang's ~$300 85mm 1.4 lens, only to realize it was a MF lens. IMO a MF "fast" lens is basically useless, because you'll end up dropping down a stop or two just to ensure you have good focus, blah. Better to just buy the EF 85mm 1.8.
Yeah..but it becomes somewhat bearable if you have a good focusing screen + huge viewfinder. I have a Katzeye screen installed in my D700 and focusing fast mf lenses is ok, I get the occasional oof shot with a 35/1.4 and 105/25 (although that's probably because of my own body movement)
Still, nothing compared to using a rangefinder. Even focusing a noctilux is easy on those things (50/0.95!)
as for the canon point & shoot models: i briefly owned a 2009 model and shooting with it meant digging through too many menu options via the clickwheel all the time. it felt very slow to use as opposed to an SLR that for one has way more buttons on the case, placed in a more ergonomic fashion and even lets you customize which function goes where (mine does, anyway).
also getting pictures off it wasn't straightforward on the apple if one wanted to avoid canon's suite of bloatware since the camera didn't register as a standard USB mass storage device (again, mine does).
i gave it to my dad, he cares more about the small form factor than anything and isn't big into fiddling with images on the computer.
Yeah..but it becomes somewhat bearable if you have a good focusing screen + huge viewfinder. I have a Katzeye screen installed in my D700 and focusing fast mf lenses is ok, I get the occasional oof shot with a 35/1.4 and 105/25 (although that's probably because of my own body movement)
Still, nothing compared to using a rangefinder. Even focusing a noctilux is easy on those things (50/0.95!)
Yeah my 350D's viewfinder is terrible, absolutely horrid. I got a cheapo split image focus screen from china for like $25 that is ok, i enjoy playing around with MF lenses but would never really buy them for my own use(I buy and sell plenty on ebay tho!).
Its said that the viewfinder in a modern SLR can never show brighter than F2.0 or 2.8 or something, so a 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 MF lens is just an excerzie in futility! Older 35mm cameras had focus screens that were better suited to fast lenses, as a 50mm 1.4 was a very common "standard lens" with a lot of 35mm kits.
Yeah my 350D's viewfinder is terrible, absolutely horrid. I got a cheapo split image focus screen from china for like $25 that is ok, i enjoy playing around with MF lenses but would never really buy them for my own use(I buy and sell plenty on ebay tho!).
Its said that the viewfinder in a modern SLR can never show brighter than F2.0 or 2.8 or something, so a 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 MF lens is just an excerzie in futility! Older 35mm cameras had focus screens that were better suited to fast lenses, as a 50mm 1.4 was a very common "standard lens" with a lot of 35mm kits.
That´s not true with the dslrs that have user changeable screens. The 5D and 40d both have screens you can buy that show true DOF on faster than f/2 lenses.
Yes, they use microlens channels that are scattered in a random array. This makes them visually brighter, but inaccurate at showing true focus, as they "grab and display" out of focus rays (which is how they are brighter). The focusing aid screens use perfectly parallel lens channels that show only what's in focus. They are noticeably dimmer on slow kit lenses, but show true focus and are fine brightness wise on lenses like the 50 1.8 and 35mm 1.4
And theoretically this could be done with any camera that lets you replace the focus screen yes? Its just that canon doesn't actually make replacement screens for the rebel series, they are replacable tho. Which probably gives some merit as to why the "Catz eyes" screens are more expensive than the generic chinese ones.
I've recently gotten quite a bit of cash for my birthday so as to buy a nice camera. Now, since you guys are usually pretty awesome with camera's I'd like to ask you for advice.
A friend already recommended the following camera's to me:
More professional models:
-Canon 500D
-Canon 550D
-Canon 600D (new)
-Niko D5000
I think I want to spend about 500 (675$) euros on this baby. I'm a starter with good camera's, but I'd like to learn stuff . Expect my pictures in the "Post 1 good picture thread".
So have you got any advice?
I must look for one of those focusing screens. Yesterday i was trying to focus in a darker area and it was just impossible and even if the viewfinder on the 5d is just big enough it was still hard to tell on a f/ 1.8 is the focus on the eyes of my model or a little behind .. ( and of course it was behind )
Which once are you guys using i dont know nothing about those focusing screens.
My personal opinion is to avoid those big clunky DSLRs. Yes, they take great pictures, but a lot of times it's better to just have a camera that can fit in your pocket. You'll use it more often if you don't have to carry it everywhere in your hands, in a pack, or around your neck.
The upcoming Nikon P300 would be an example. It still has manual controls and HD video recording, etc etc. Decide what features you want and then dive into reviews
I never used any of the cameras you listed but for starting camera any one of those should be fine Go to the store and pick each one of them in your hand and play with them to see how they feel in your hand.
The problem for those cameras is that they dont have focusing motor in the body so if you get them you cant use lenses without focusing motor in the lens itself. (which means that you wil have to focus manually)
Think about what do you want to shoot? Portraits, landscape, sports, macro.. i know it is hard to know if you are just starting now but you must have some idea
Once you know that try to find good lens that will work for you and then see if you want to go Nikon or Canon.
Also If you can get older body - used but higher class- depends how you feel about getting second hand stuff .
Would be great if you continue this in the other thread so all the conversation stays in the same thread.
I hope that was helpful.
edit :
yep those are big and you dont have them with you all the time and sometimes you are just .. damn i wish i had my camera
The new Sony nex and Olympus pen are great cameras and it might be good idea to start off with one of them
I own the Canon 550D, it's a really nice camera. Since I'm just taking up photography myself I decided to go for that one instead of the 70D. The stock-lens that comes with isn't really that great. I bought a 28mm f1.8 USM lens with it.
Tbh I'd rather spend more money in the beginning making sure you get a really nice camera-body and then save up for some nice lenses later.
i got the 500D and i love it...slightly regretting not spending the extra for the FUll HD video of the 550D but not too much at the time the differnce was nearly £250
and a DSLR is so versatile.... way more than a compact will ever be....
aah, i've been redirected here from my own thread.
Thanks a lot for the effort you guys put into writing this down! I still have no idea what to buy now though, so the main conclusion of this thread is: buy good lenses > buy good body, right?
Hey Japhir one thing I really considered when buying a DSLR, is that those cheaper models like the D3100 and so don't have an internal Autofocus motor. Which means that quite a few lenses won't be able to AF on those models. For me, all but one of my 4 lenses wouldn't have had AF, something i didn't really want. You're probably going to want something like a 35-50mm prime as one of your first lenses (I'd recommend it, it's fun) and those lenses all lack an internal motor.
What I got was a second hand Fuji S5 Pro (which is based on a D200) for 500 euros. It might lack HD video and live view but does have the AF motor.
Thanks Entity. I checked katzeye but I dont think they have one for 5d and even if they had i was thinning about something a little cheaper.
Will dig in to focusingscreen.com when I have more time and try to research what could be good option for my camera.
Thanks again.
No problem From what I remember canon used to sell their own focusing screens for the 5D, not sure if it's still available though. But from what I can tell the screens @ focusingscreen.com seem to be canon stock, so you should be ok
When it comes to focusingscreens, I typically prefer those that focus with the horizontal split (eg EC-B) rather than the microprism type (EC-A). It's much easier to focus when all you have to do is align the top half with the bottom half.
so the main conclusion of this thread is: buy good lenses > buy good body, right?
This is my motto when it comes to buying gear. My best lens cost more than my camera body. When you get a nice lens that you like, you're far less likely to replace it, now with a camera body, dSLR tech is moving so fast that you'll probably be looking at a new body every 2-3 years(just like a PC, lol). Lenses also tend to keep value much better than bodies. So dont feel like you need to get the newest bestest body that costs $800, because you can probably pick up last year's model for $500 used, or the year before that for $400 used.
Now getting quality used lenses, you'll often pay 75-85% of the new cost. Quality lenses are almost always a good investment, if you use them for 2 years and decide to sell, you'll be able to get a lot of that money back, and you'll have used the lens for 2 years. Which makes you feel better about dropping $400 on a lens.
Also, I pretty much exclusively buy used lenses, and I snipe them on eBay and wait for cheap prices. This means that when I resell, I can sell the lens for more than what I paid. This is quite easy to do.
Also, I would say get a Canon, because of the compatibility issues with various Nikon bodies/lenses. Every Canon EF lens works on every Canon EF(EOS) body. Look at a used 500D body + EF 50mm 1.8(should be $100 new, used isnt really worth it for this lens). 500D has all the modern bells and whistles, live view, HD(720p) video, but without the high cost of the 550D or 7D.
If you dont need liveview or HD video, get a dirt cheap 20D!
Avoid the 1000D, as this is basically an even worse line than the standard Digital Rebels, from what I understand. How it works is:
XXXXD = Lowest class
XXXD = Amateur
XXD = Semi-pro
Xd = Pro
My personal opinion is to avoid those big clunky DSLRs. Yes, they take great pictures, but a lot of times it's better to just have a camera that can fit in your pocket. You'll use it more often if you don't have to carry it everywhere in your hands, in a pack, or around your neck.
The upcoming Nikon P300 would be an example. It still has manual controls and HD video recording, etc etc. Decide what features you want and then dive into reviews
Well when you really think about it, most compact cameras these days are only going to be marginally better than a cell phone camera, where as a dSLR is in an entirely different class, I dont know if you've ever used an SLR or understand much about photography, but I would encourage you to look into the real differences.
Unless you get into the $300-400 range for compacts, its just not comparable, and at that point, spend the money on a real photography tool, suck it up and look like a nerd with your big clunky camera, its worth it.
Besides, i'm sure most people already have a compact camera for the purpose of just throwing it in a pocket when they dont want to take out a dSLR. And for this purpose, its silly to spend more than like $150.
Well when you really think about it, most compact cameras these days are only going to be marginally better than a cell phone camera, where as a dSLR is in an entirely different class, I dont know if you've ever used an SLR or understand much about photography, but I would encourage you to look into the real differences.
Unless you get into the $300-400 range for compacts, its just not comparable, and at that point, spend the money on a real photography tool, suck it up and look like a nerd with your big clunky camera, its worth it.
Besides, i'm sure most people already have a compact camera for the purpose of just throwing it in a pocket when they dont want to take out a dSLR. And for this purpose, its silly to spend more than like $150.
Believe me, I know the difference in quality, it's undeniable. I've just seen a lot of friends pick up a big fancy camera, and then rarely use it because it's a pain to lug around. It just depends on how serious you are about photography.
And a lot of new compact cameras have pretty impressive quality. I think you'd be surprised. But yes, in the 300 dolllar range.
No matter how sharp you make a compact, or how good the noise performance is going to be, it will never compare to a dSRL, because of the small sensor size. This has huge implications as far as depth of field is concerned, and is essential to creative photography. So with compact SLRs, no matter how good they get, you're still just polishing a turd. You need a big sensor to have full creative control over your photography.
In addition to that, you look at a Canon S95, which has a max aperture of 2.0, which is plenty fast, until you realize that the long end of that zoom lens is a very sluggish 6.3. Even my shity kit lens is at worst 5.6. So that S95 is only fast at the widest end, and wide angle lenses make for poor portraits. And then consider that even with the S95, a recent-ish SLR is going to give atleast 2 stops better noise performance, its just... meh
But yeah, I agree, dont spend the money on it just because "its the best" but because you actually understand the advantages and want to use a dSLR, for *real photography*, not just taking snapshots or whatever casual use, because you likely wont use it enough to justify the cost. But I think the same can be said about expensive compacts as well, if you're just using it for casual use, you likely wont notice the difference between a sub-$100 and a sub-$400 compact.
Dont get me wrong, I see that Canon S95 and want one, but its a totally irrational desire on my part. Everything it does well a dSLR does *much, much* better. For the purposes I would use it for(pocket camera for random shots) my 3 year old Canon Elph performs just fine. For the price, I'd spend $100 more and get a Olympus 4/3rds EP-1, a true SLR in a very small package.
Thanks Etinity i have never seen the focus screen you are talking about but i will look for more info online
Yep I agree with EQ. there are advantages of the size if you get p&s but if you want to learn photography go for it
With that said you should watch this-
a fashion shoot with a iphone hahahahhaha
It is not so real because he had a fantastic model, make up, hair and he also had a great lighting so it was no so difficult to shoot this even with an iphone.
To be honest with myself i was believing that the gear does not meter so much as long as you understand the basics of photography .... well after having a olympus e 510, nikon d90 , just now that i got my canon 5d I am actually able to achieve the results i was after ... so i dont know how to accept this....
The best thing will be to go to the store and pick each one of those cameras and feel it .. talk to it?? (kidding) and just get anything and go with it soon after that you will know what else do you need to serve your needs.
If you go that way you should go for older used dslr and a cheap 50mm 1.8 and start posting pictures
Replies
Canon can use:
Olympus OM
Pentax/Universal screw mount M42
Pentax K
Nikon
Leica R
Possibly a few more that i'm forgetting?
any thoughts .... ?
I haven't used a 5D, but I have played around a bit with a 1Ds Mark I, which is a huge beast of a camera, wonder feel and features, beautiful big viewfinder, however just simply massive. The 5D seems to be the reasonable equivalent of the 1D, and really the sane choice for a pro body these days.
Looking at prices a bit, a better direct comparison would probably be a 7D, just some quick glances it looks like the Nikon has a bit better ISO performance, but the canon has more resolution(so the higher per-pixel noise performance is moot), and a really nice video mode. 7D does 100-12800 ISO, whereas the 300D does 100-6400.
The 5D Mark I does have a max ISO of 3200, which is pretty limited to say the least. But i do a lot of low light stuff, this may not be a problem for everyone.
At the end of the day i would say: Full frame? Get a 5d, Crop? Toss up between D300 and 7D.
[edit] Looks like used 5D's start at $800 used, which sounds fan-fucking-tastic. And a 5D Mark II used is about the same as a 7D/D300s New, in the $1600-2000 range
I found the 5d and d300 for about 1000$ bouth ..... I never really had to use ISO more than 800 or may be it is because the image quality gets horrible on the cameras i have got so far. I dont have any other lenses except the 50 mm 1.8 so this does not meter.
I had the chance to play with 1d mark I as well and .... yeaa it is a beast
Such a difficult decision to make...... if only the focus on that d90 was working a touch better I would not think about getting new camera.
Edit: oo about the 7d ... this is a lot more expensive
Unless of course you're used to that crop 50 range, and dont really require much more. If you're not doing a lot of wide angle stuff, a crop body isnt a bad thing. One of the biggest reasons to get a full frame body is because a 28mm lens(EF 28mm 2.8, $175) is actually a wide lens, not ~45mm normal lens equivalent crop.
Me personally, I would rather use a 50mm 1.8 as a "normal lens" because of the flattering perspective of that range, my Sigma 30mm 1.4 "normal" lens isn't too nice to some people's faces! And of course the massive perspective distortion at 18mm(28mm equiv) range. But now you're dropping $300+ on a proper portrait lens as well.
Now of course, if you get a 85mm lens, you have the added benifit of the even more pleasing perspective distortion of a proper portait lens, which is a good thing, along with the EF 85mm 1.8 being an excellent lens.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/85mm.htm
So I guess I just need to sell the d90 and I am all set. Also my friend has the 50 mm 1.4
Thanks ocne again for your opinions guys really appreciated.
Sigma 30mm 1.4 is crop only, which is a shame and means I'll have to sell mine when I upgrade to full frame, but thats ok, i'll probabbly get a 50mm 1.4 at that point anyway. And then either the 28mm 1.8 or 35 2. Resell prices on the 30mm is just slightly less than what I paid for it new($375 compared to $415) so not a big deal yet.
I wanna go get a 50mm or 35mm f1.8 tomorrow. I'm wondering, would a 35mm DX be as widely applicable as 35mm with crop ?
You can also find the Nikon 28mm 2.8 AF for $100-150 used on ebay, which is a steal if you want something a little wider than the 35mm. You'll probably want the 35mm and 50mm at some point, but to start off, i'de suggest the 50mm and a 28mm, because of the cheap ass price of both(not that the Nikon 35mm 1.8 is expensive) and the wider range you'll get out of these two lenses. The 28mm will function as your wider lens, you'll use it for landscapes, architectural, crowds, and anywhere your 50mm is too tight to use. The 50mm will function as a tight general purpose lens, when you want to be a bit more close and personal, when you want to use DOF more creatively, when you want to take pictures of single people close up or small groups from a moderate distance, and when you have low light.
The 35mm is a blend of both of these lenses, if you just had to buy ONE, it would probably be a good choice, but you'll likely want both in the future, and I would always suggest a 50mm to start with. However, when you consider the cost of a 28mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8 could be about $250, the 35mm alone doesn't look that attractive. I am not a Nikon guy however, so this 28mm 2.8 lens could = shit, doubtful tho, as most primes are intrinsically good lenses to have, unless convenience is your main concern.
The real important thing to remember when thinking crop is that a wide angle is always a wide angle lens, even on a crop body. This means the DOF and perspective distortion properties will stay the same, and when someone says a 35mm = 52.5mm, all that is referring to is section of the lens the sensor sees, not that it transforms any of the lens's native characteristics.
Wide angles exaggerate proportions, the wide the more far apart relationships between objects will seem. Wide angle lenses naturally reach infinity much sooner, this means that at at a shorter distance(relative to a "normal" 50mm lens or portrait/telephoto) you'll hit the point where regardless of your FStop, you're going to have a very wide depth of feild. So wide angle lenses are harder to use for creative depth of feild stuff, like isolating the subject from the background, as you have to be closer the the subject(over 10 feet away on a 28mm is going to be pretty much infinite DOF). However, you can always get closer to your subject with a wide angle lens as well, so there is a trade off there.
28mm and 35mm lenses are "wide angles" although the 35mm barely qualifies as such, 40-60mm range is considered a "normal" lens, 70-100 is "portrait" anything above 100 is a telephoto of some sort, and anything below 24mm is an "ultra wide", and generally below 14mm is a fisheye, but a few zooms and primes have been made in this range that arent fish-eye.
Now with your 18-55mm lens, if you read up what I wrote on my canon lens, consider this lens a 18mm 3.5 lens. Do not even think about using this lens for other ranges, cheap primes can be found that do a *much much* better job, like the 28mm, 35mm and 50mm. However at the 18mm range, you will spend a lot of money to get a good prime. SO, a 18mm 3.5 cheapo lens is a bargain for 30 euros, you'll end up using this when you want really wide shots, landscape, cramped interiors(with enough light of course, or a tripod!), etc.
Sorry if i'm repeating some of this from earlier posts, just a few important points I feel are good to hammer home.
Now for more subtle type of portraits, with a wide angle lens like a 35mm doing portraiture, getting a little distance between you and the subject helps, as the closer you are the more exaggerated the proportions will end up being. With Ben's 35mm here, you can see he has some good distance between him and his subjects, which helps to minimize the negative aspects of perspective distortion. A 35mm lens while technically a wide angle lens, is the most subtle wide angle you can get, which makes it a very good general purpose lens, esp on full frame.
His 2nd shot down creates a very cool "infinity" type effect because of the relationship that the trees have, something that would look much more compressed and "closer" on a 50mm or 85mm lens.
Don't think i'll be getting a 28 prime soon though, as i have the 28-105 for that angle. Same for using the 18-55 just for 18mm, I think I'd prefer the Sigma 18-35 there.
Btw thanks for all the advice Earthquake and others, really cool I can also get this at Polycount
At the moment I have a Canon 450D with a 50mm 1.8 II and a Sigma 18-125mm 3.5-5.6(no is, no usm or anything) and I've been thinking about getting me a 30mm prime since I find the 50mm on my crop sensor to be very limiting at times and my Sigma lens image quality just doesnt cut it most of the times. Since I'm living on an interns salary(meaning I have 1400 dollars a month to live for, and 450 of them already go to paying rent) I have a hard time choosing wether I should opt for a new camera body(like a 550d or the new 60d), or that 30mm... Any ideas?
Now, for the 30mm ish range you have a few choices
Canon 28mm 2.8 $175
Canon 35mm 2.0 $225
Canon 28mm 1.8 $375
Sigma 30mm 1.4 $425(NEW, all other prices are used) - This is the lens I went with, upgrading from the 28mm 2.8. Buy it new, this lens has focusing issues and you will likely need to send it and your camera body to sigma for calibration, which is free other than $10 to ship it to them, and mine was back in about 7 days(amazing fast), and works great now.
Canon 35mm 1.4L $1200 Looking at the price of this lens, the Sigma 30mm at 1.4 is a bargain even with the issues.
So I would say, $200 range, 28mm 2.8 or 35mm 2.0 get the 35 if you want a little faster, get the 28 if you want a little wider.
For $400, the 28mm 1.8 or 30mm 1.4, get 1.4 if you want the speed, and the 1.8 if you dont want to deal with Sigma's service center.
And my response:
Hey, first off, feel free to post in the camera thread, it doesnt have to be strictly SLR advice. Now saying that, my first instinct when hearing someone is willing the shell out $400 for a P&S is: BUY AN SLR!!
You'll spend more upfront on a dSLR, but possibly less over time. A dSLR is a good investment, it holds its value in resale much better than a P&S, so when you decide to sell your camera in 2-3 years, you'll make back a large chunk of that initial cost, and be able to put that into upgrades. Also you can simply upgrade the body and keep your lens(es). Plus, an SLR simply blows a P&S out of the water, even the best P&S compared to the worst dSLR, you'll get better flexibility and image quality, as more creative control. The tiny sensors in P&S cameras mean not only do you get more noise and worse image quality, but you get wide depth of field, which means its much harder to do artistic DOF shots with nice blurry backgrounds.
Now, if you absolutely NEED to have a P&S, the Canon S90 and S95 are said to be very good. I'm not really an expert on Audio/Video recording, and dont know the specifics of the S90/95's features, but for loud audio, you will likely want something capable of using an external mic, like the Canon 550D. I dont think the built in audio on either a dSLR or P&S is going to be high quality.
One thing to note, at the wide end the S90/95 is a 2.0 lens, but at the long end its a very slow 6.3 lens, so even if you could zoom in you'd get very poor low light results out of it in those ranges.
Here are a couple videos:
Showing the difference in bokeh(out of focus areas) on the s95 and an SLR: [ame="
some lowlight video tests on s95/slr: [ame]
Heres one of the better sample videos I could find from the s95, you see in most shots the depth of field isn't particularity great, it looks like there is some "tilt/shift" mode in there, but looks like its just post processed blur: [ame="
And some 550d videos (do a google video search for "550d test"):
[ame="
[ame="
So the main conclusion to pull from video quality here is, the 550D will offer a very much "high end" film look, and the s95 while excellent for a P&S, is still a point and shoot at heart, and really isn't going to give you much improvement in the "look at fee" of your video, only really improvements in noise performance and low light shooting over a more standard P&S.
Now this gets very subjective and depends on your shooting style and what you intend to take videos of of course, if you want wide shots with DOF clear into the distance, a P&S type camera would be better, if you want more artistic control over your focus, a more "filmic" look with the ability to isolate your subject from the fore/background, and SLR is going to be what you want.
I dunno, I think it would be a pretty hard argument to make that the 35L is 3x as good as the 30mm 1.4. I'm certainly not going to say the 30mm 1.4 is a better lens, but I do believe its a much better value. The 35L is your only choice if you want a fast(1.4) wide on full frame tho!
Still, nothing compared to using a rangefinder. Even focusing a noctilux is easy on those things (50/0.95!)
also getting pictures off it wasn't straightforward on the apple if one wanted to avoid canon's suite of bloatware since the camera didn't register as a standard USB mass storage device (again, mine does).
i gave it to my dad, he cares more about the small form factor than anything and isn't big into fiddling with images on the computer.
Yeah my 350D's viewfinder is terrible, absolutely horrid. I got a cheapo split image focus screen from china for like $25 that is ok, i enjoy playing around with MF lenses but would never really buy them for my own use(I buy and sell plenty on ebay tho!).
Its said that the viewfinder in a modern SLR can never show brighter than F2.0 or 2.8 or something, so a 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 MF lens is just an excerzie in futility! Older 35mm cameras had focus screens that were better suited to fast lenses, as a 50mm 1.4 was a very common "standard lens" with a lot of 35mm kits.
That´s not true with the dslrs that have user changeable screens. The 5D and 40d both have screens you can buy that show true DOF on faster than f/2 lenses.
I've recently gotten quite a bit of cash for my birthday so as to buy a nice camera. Now, since you guys are usually pretty awesome with camera's I'd like to ask you for advice.
A friend already recommended the following camera's to me:
Cheaper, starter models:
-Canon 1000D
-Canon 1100D (new)
-Nikon D3000
-Nikon D3100 (new)
More professional models:
-Canon 500D
-Canon 550D
-Canon 600D (new)
-Niko D5000
I think I want to spend about 500 (675$) euros on this baby. I'm a starter with good camera's, but I'd like to learn stuff
So have you got any advice?
Which once are you guys using i dont know nothing about those focusing screens.
The upcoming Nikon P300 would be an example. It still has manual controls and HD video recording, etc etc. Decide what features you want and then dive into reviews
focusingscreen.com is another good alternative, but make sure you do a lot of research because some of their screens are crap.
Here is another thread and there is plenty of talking about cameras in it :
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79655
I never used any of the cameras you listed but for starting camera any one of those should be fine
The problem for those cameras is that they dont have focusing motor in the body so if you get them you cant use lenses without focusing motor in the lens itself. (which means that you wil have to focus manually)
Think about what do you want to shoot? Portraits, landscape, sports, macro.. i know it is hard to know if you are just starting now but you must have some idea
Once you know that try to find good lens that will work for you and then see if you want to go Nikon or Canon.
Also If you can get older body - used but higher class- depends how you feel about getting second hand stuff .
Would be great if you continue this in the other thread so all the conversation stays in the same thread.
I hope that was helpful.
edit :
yep those are big and you dont have them with you all the time and sometimes you are just .. damn i wish i had my camera
The new Sony nex and Olympus pen are great cameras and it might be good idea to start off with one of them
Tbh I'd rather spend more money in the beginning making sure you get a really nice camera-body and then save up for some nice lenses later.
You can look at some of my shots at
http://swedishgeek.com
Headshots taken with my 50mm f1.4 USM and landscape & half-to-full bodyshots with my 28mm.
and a DSLR is so versatile.... way more than a compact will ever be....
Thanks a lot for the effort you guys put into writing this down! I still have no idea what to buy now though, so the main conclusion of this thread is: buy good lenses > buy good body, right?
Thanks.
What I got was a second hand Fuji S5 Pro (which is based on a D200) for 500 euros. It might lack HD video and live view but does have the AF motor.
Will dig in to focusingscreen.com when I have more time and try to research what could be good option for my camera.
Thanks again.
When it comes to focusingscreens, I typically prefer those that focus with the horizontal split (eg EC-B) rather than the microprism type (EC-A). It's much easier to focus when all you have to do is align the top half with the bottom half.
This is my motto when it comes to buying gear. My best lens cost more than my camera body. When you get a nice lens that you like, you're far less likely to replace it, now with a camera body, dSLR tech is moving so fast that you'll probably be looking at a new body every 2-3 years(just like a PC, lol). Lenses also tend to keep value much better than bodies. So dont feel like you need to get the newest bestest body that costs $800, because you can probably pick up last year's model for $500 used, or the year before that for $400 used.
Now getting quality used lenses, you'll often pay 75-85% of the new cost. Quality lenses are almost always a good investment, if you use them for 2 years and decide to sell, you'll be able to get a lot of that money back, and you'll have used the lens for 2 years. Which makes you feel better about dropping $400 on a lens.
Also, I pretty much exclusively buy used lenses, and I snipe them on eBay and wait for cheap prices. This means that when I resell, I can sell the lens for more than what I paid. This is quite easy to do.
Also, I would say get a Canon, because of the compatibility issues with various Nikon bodies/lenses. Every Canon EF lens works on every Canon EF(EOS) body. Look at a used 500D body + EF 50mm 1.8(should be $100 new, used isnt really worth it for this lens). 500D has all the modern bells and whistles, live view, HD(720p) video, but without the high cost of the 550D or 7D.
If you dont need liveview or HD video, get a dirt cheap 20D!
Avoid the 1000D, as this is basically an even worse line than the standard Digital Rebels, from what I understand. How it works is:
XXXXD = Lowest class
XXXD = Amateur
XXD = Semi-pro
Xd = Pro
Well when you really think about it, most compact cameras these days are only going to be marginally better than a cell phone camera, where as a dSLR is in an entirely different class, I dont know if you've ever used an SLR or understand much about photography, but I would encourage you to look into the real differences.
Unless you get into the $300-400 range for compacts, its just not comparable, and at that point, spend the money on a real photography tool, suck it up and look like a nerd with your big clunky camera, its worth it.
Besides, i'm sure most people already have a compact camera for the purpose of just throwing it in a pocket when they dont want to take out a dSLR. And for this purpose, its silly to spend more than like $150.
Believe me, I know the difference in quality, it's undeniable. I've just seen a lot of friends pick up a big fancy camera, and then rarely use it because it's a pain to lug around. It just depends on how serious you are about photography.
And a lot of new compact cameras have pretty impressive quality. I think you'd be surprised. But yes, in the 300 dolllar range.
In addition to that, you look at a Canon S95, which has a max aperture of 2.0, which is plenty fast, until you realize that the long end of that zoom lens is a very sluggish 6.3. Even my shity kit lens is at worst 5.6. So that S95 is only fast at the widest end, and wide angle lenses make for poor portraits. And then consider that even with the S95, a recent-ish SLR is going to give atleast 2 stops better noise performance, its just... meh
But yeah, I agree, dont spend the money on it just because "its the best" but because you actually understand the advantages and want to use a dSLR, for *real photography*, not just taking snapshots or whatever casual use, because you likely wont use it enough to justify the cost. But I think the same can be said about expensive compacts as well, if you're just using it for casual use, you likely wont notice the difference between a sub-$100 and a sub-$400 compact.
Dont get me wrong, I see that Canon S95 and want one, but its a totally irrational desire on my part. Everything it does well a dSLR does *much, much* better. For the purposes I would use it for(pocket camera for random shots) my 3 year old Canon Elph performs just fine. For the price, I'd spend $100 more and get a Olympus 4/3rds EP-1, a true SLR in a very small package.
Yep I agree with EQ. there are advantages of the size if you get p&s but if you want to learn photography
With that said you should watch this-
[ame]
a fashion shoot with a iphone
It is not so real because he had a fantastic model, make up, hair and he also had a great lighting so it was no so difficult to shoot this
To be honest with myself i was believing that the gear does not meter so much as long as you understand the basics of photography .... well after having a olympus e 510, nikon d90 , just now that i got my canon 5d I am actually able to achieve the results i was after ... so i dont know how to accept this....
The best thing will be to go to the store and pick each one of those cameras and feel it .. talk to it??
If you go that way you should go for older used dslr and a cheap 50mm 1.8