Image quality, AF, viewfinder better noise on iso up to 1600 and well it is a full frame camera body
I am not very technical so i dont know the details but let me give you an example When i was shooting with the d90 and 50mm 1.8 it was impossible to get a decent shot at f/1.8 - 2.8 now with my 5d i still have some shots at f1.8 that are not on the money but they are only 10-20% .. and if this does not mean anything because it could be just me learning what i am doing wrong my friend has a 450d with 50 mm 1.4 canon lens and with those lens at 1.8 for her is still very hard to get sharp shots and to get the focus working correct. If I move the lens to the 5d the focus works much better.
But dont take my word for it because i am still very new to this and up til 1 year ago i was only taking pictures for fun and not really trying to understand what was i doing and I am still very new at this.
For me it comes down to this - are you happy with it or not
Was i happy with my d90 -- no Am i happy with a 6 years old 5d .. oo yeaa
Sorry if i could not give you more detailed answer
I shoot wide open with my Canon 50mm 1.8 and and Sigma 30mm 1.4 pretty often, I think its generally a matter of learning how to deal with the very narrow DOF than anything to do with AF accuracy, however, if you get more "keepers" on your 5D maybe it would make sense.
This could also be due to poorly calibrated lens-body combo. My 50mm has always seemed fine, and I had sigma service my 30mm as it was way off(as is common with these lenses) I send me body+lens to them and they synced it up. However the 5D lets you manually tweak the front/rear focus on a per lens basis!
Unlike oldschool lenses that relied on extreme precision in manufacturing, AF lenses are calibrated electronically, or "in software" to within a certain tolerance, if your body and lens happen to be on the wrong sides of that tolerance, you can have issues and having Canon service it may help, but probably not worth the cost for cheap equipment unless its under warranty.
I agree again EQ and that is why I said i dont really know all that much about the technical side of the things. However as i said my images look somewhat better with this camera At least for me. Could be all in my head And I do get more keeper a lot more
Also I am sure that by now i learned a bit and it might be normal that i am more careful and think more while shooting wide open - which I do all the time.
I have seen so many great pictures taken with lower class cameras and a lot of photographers with big exhibition and they made it all with lets say 450d .. that is why i posted that video about the iphone
I think once you get in to this it all becomes very personal ..
I am sorry if my post sounded like all the lower class cameras are no good - this is just how it worked for me so far ,
No no no, not at all. I agree completely, I was just trying to shed some light on potentially why you would notice some differences there. Also you were switching from a Nikon system to a Canon system, maybe canon has more accurate AF in general? Dont know.
Also, i'm surprised to hear you've only been shooting for about a year, as your shots look like you have much more experience than that! I've actually only been shooting with my dSLR for about a year as well.
I think Nikon are the system with better AF at least on paper, but go figure it out hhah
The 5d has the same AF as the 20 d as far as i know and it is even the same on the 5d mark 2 and it only has one cross sensor in the center. I found that used 5d before I found out that it only has one cross sensor AF but the nikon d90 was gone already so i just went for it
It has many downsides compared to newer cameras but those are not important for me for now. The other thing I am very happy about is that i can sell it now if I wanted to and not loose any money from it ( not that i am going to)
Currently I am trying to decide should i get new lens or sign up for a short class for intermediate photographers....
Edit :
Thanks for the compliment EQ. As i said i had my olympus for almost 3 years before that but i was using it on auto and i was shooting everything without understanding what does dof mean and all the rest of the stuff. I still dont know a lot. It also helps that I went to a workshop half an year ago and met some cool people there as well i had some very good teachers for a long weekend which may not sound like a lot but i definitely learned tons of stuff just by watching them.
Also just now I started editing my photographs and messing with the colors and playing with the mood.
I have to say it is a huge distraction for me and i am even thinking about giving it to someone during the week so i can concentrate more on the 3d
EQ: You say you almost exclusively buy used lenses(on ebay?) and it got me thinking, what do you do/look out for concerning the state(wear, faults, scratches etc) of the lens?
Up until now I've always bought brand new lenses but lately I feel I need to step it up a little... unfortunately the price-tags of said lens were not quick to follow but way ahead.
Hey Disanski, cool thanks for the answer. I definitely hear ya on 1.8 being hard to focus. Most of my shots with it are discarded as well, but I figure it's more because I'm not really adjusting the AF mode and it being hard to judge focus on the viewfinder. I also find that I need improve most of them to a more acceptable state by downsizing, going to black and white and other little tricks.
Hey and very cool that you've only being doing things for a year, I really wouldn't have been able to tell from your pictures. I hope to see the same sort of results for me in a year. Maybe I should consider a course too. I've even been thinking about going back to school part-time to study photography, not sure if I can combine that with my job though.
I was thinking about it, photography compared to 3D, it's just very satisfying to create nice images with such "limited" possibilities compared to 3D, where you can basically do anything, but it takes sooo much more work. Part of the want of going back to school comes from just wanting to be busy with it a lot more.
Ah thanks for merging the threads. I'm gonna go to a shop soon, to be able to hold some in my hand. Was allowed to take some pictures with the 1000D of a friend yesterday, during a party. Felt pretty cool .
So about lenses, i still don't quite understand what the deal is:
the 'standard' lens is 35mm right? and then you have 50mm which is more of a landscape lens or something? aaargh! :P haha. The mm classify the lens' width and the f the distance of the focal point to the lens? Yeah i'm n00b :P.
landscape lenses are typically wide lenses, so anything below 35mm. The 50mm is commonly known as a standard lens because it matches what our eyes see. The catch is that when paired with a camera with a smaller/cropped sensor (like the 1000d), the 50mm becomes an 80mm+ lens. This is why many refer to it as a portrait lens.
So if you want a "standard" lens, getting a 35mm makes sense because it becomes a 50mm when you attach it to a APS-C camera.
even when you understand what the numbers mean you might still be confused about what lens are better for portrait or landscapes as was I ( I was pretty sure that the person explaining it to me was wrong when he directed me to 135 mm lens for portraits silly me )
So for portraits you would probably get something between 50 - 135 mm and if possible with bigger aperture so you can blur the background and have your subject stand out.
For landscaper most likely you need something like 35 mm or less but those are just guides and you can shoot portraits with any lens out there if you know what you are doing
Traditionally, 85-135mm range is considered "portrait" but 85mm is really the classic portrait lens, as 100mm and 135mm lenses are a bit too tight.
A 50mm is ~ 85mm on digital crop, so its considered a good portrait lens.
One thing that is very important to remember however, a 35mm lens is still a 35mm lens, and a 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens when it comes to lens characteristics, on a crop body the view is just cropped, the optical aspects of the lens is not altered.
So, a 35mm lens is still a wide angle lens, and is going to have a more exaggerated perspective distortion, exaggerate the relationships between objects, where a 50mm is closest to how the eye sees, which is why everything wider or shorter is called something other than "normal". A 85mm lens(and longer) compresses perspective, which can be very pleasing for faces etc, as you avoid the "fisheye" look that is so unattractive for people.
In addition to perspective distortion, we also have focusing characteristics , the wider the lens is, the sooner it hits infinity. My 30mm lens hits infinity at about 10 feet, and my 50mm hits it at probably 30 feet, a 85mm likely hits it at 50 feet or further. Now, this is important when it comes to out of focus blurriness, as after 10 feet, the depth of field is essentially infinite on my 30mm lens, so you've gotta be quite close to you subject to get nice out of focus highlights. Even thought my 50mm lens is a tad slower, it provides much more background blur in every situation except really close up. So while a 30mm lens on a crop is a great general purpose lens, a 50mm lens on a full frame camera is always better. Not to say my 30mm lens isnt good, its just not a 50mm lens.
On the reverse side of that, an 85mm lens produces even better out of focus areas than a 50mm lens, the Canon 85mm 1.8 lens produces "more" bokeh(out of focus highlights) than a the 50mm 1.8, even though they are the same speed. Which is another reason why 85mm lenses are considered portrait lenses, and getting creamy out of focus backgrounds is essential to portraiture, so while a 50mm lens has no "wide" type perspective distortion and has a similar view to a 85mm on crop, it is not an actual portrait lens, but makes a very good facsimile.
Now, a 35mm lens carries with it the least amount of perspective distortion of "wide angle" lenses, so it makes a great general purpose lens, either on full frame or crop. But a 50mm or 85mm will always be considered as better for taking pictures of people, that is not to say that you cant take pictures of people with a 35mm lens of course.
Now, as far as what lens you should buy, if you just want 1 lens, I would go with a 35mm lens. otherwise, I would start with a 50mm lens, and then get a 28mm lens shortly afterwords, as a 50mm an a 35mm lens would represent a very limited range.
Traditional lens classification:
Superwide(on crop) 10-15mm
Fisheye generally 8-15mm
Superwide 16-20mm
Wide angle 24-35mm
Normal 40-60mm
Portrait 85-135mm
Telephoto 135mm +
So, in my mind, a good kit would consist of:
Cheap-o 18-55mm kit lens to get really wide shots on crop, this will be used less often so its ok to go with a cheap zoom
Canon 28mm 2.8, Canon 28mm 1.8 or Sigma 30mm 1.4, depending on budget
Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 85mm 1.8
Cheap-o telephoto zoom for like the 75-300mm, 80-200mm, 55-200mm etc, again cheap because I would use these a lot less often. I have a Canon 80-200mm II because it is super small and light, not the best optical quality, but unlike a super expensive and heavy L series zoom, I would actually put it in my bag and take it with me.
EarthQuake, you are the man for giving me all this info. I just bought a 20d body, kit lens, 2 batteries and a case for $225 a couple weeks ago. Have been playing around with it and reading about lenses that a noob like me should be looking at.
Didn't think I was going to find the perfect thread for my camera on polycount. I thought I made a good decision buying it but now you have me really sold. I'm only half way through the thread, just had to stop and tell you of my amazement.
Thanks again
Edit: Ok I read the whole thing and it looks like I want an EF 50mm 1.8 in the near future as my first lens.
I also can't get enough good advice from Ben Mathis, I have read the first few posts on your photo blog a couple months back , of course very inspiring to see your success follow to the camera.
So today i did it, turned out differnt than i expected because the store guy gave me some advice as well. What i got now is:
Canon EOS 1000D with a zoom lens: EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6. I asked him about the 50mm lens (they had it for 129 euros) but he told me that'd be a good option, but because you only have that set mm thingie it'd be better to buy a zoom lens first (even though it has a less good f value) so i could first experience what kind of pictures i like taking.
I'd get the 50mm straight away unless you really wanna watch your money. I've really enjoyed bringing my camera along with that lens to social activities like a concert, when we go drinking in a bar or whatever. Makes for some fun conversation most of the time, I get to practice difficult low light with it and I always end up with some nice pictures for facebook that are way above the average level of snapshots. Quite a few people have picked new profile pictures out of shots I took for example
Anyway just trying to point out why I think that lens is fun, it makes me try photographing people, something I never considered before.
So today i did it, turned out differnt than i expected because the store guy gave me some advice as well. What i got now is:
Canon EOS 1000D with a zoom lens: EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6. I asked him about the 50mm lens (they had it for 129 euros) but he told me that'd be a good option, but because you only have that set mm thingie it'd be better to buy a zoom lens first (even though it has a less good f value) so i could first experience what kind of pictures i like taking.
You definitely want a 50mm to start with, hell, I think you should return that 18-200mm. How much did you spend on it? You can likely buy 2-3 good used prime lenses instead. A zoom like that is a only really a good choice for someone who wants casual use, and isn't ever going to take the time to learn much about photography, just wants an "easy" lens.
The ONLY thing it gives you is added convenience.
Zooms are:
Slower, and have variable apertures
Not as sharp
Have less contrast
Have more chromatic aberrations and other defects
Have more barrel distortion
Unless you've got a $1000+ L series zoom or something, a couple prime lenses will beat the shit out a zoom. I dont think its a bad idea to have a zoom to learn the focal ranges you'll need, but that 18-200mm lens is what, $400 or more? Its just way to much to pay for a mediocre zoom lens, pretty much anything with that much zoom range has to make serious compromises to image quality.
If you really want something with a massive amount of range, get a older used Tamron 28-200mm, which you can find on bay or like $90. You'll be using either lens to simply figure out which ranges you like to use, and get a better prime or zoom lens anyway, it may as well be a cheap lens.
If you're dead set on getting a zoom, take a look at these, which all should be cheaper, and offering less zoom range; will offer better image quality.
Canon EF 24-85mm 3.5-4.5, $160-250 used, 24mm is pretty wide on a digital crop, certaily wide enough for 99% of uses, and it goes out to a 85mm "portrait" type range. This is a good walk around general purpose lens if you dont need the longer telephoto ranges, but most likely you dont really. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-24-85mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Canon EF 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 $225-300 used, a bit more range on the long end again and IS feature as well, 135mm on a crop body will actually give you a very good amount of reach. A little slower on the back end, however the IS more than makes up for it. This is one of the best general purpose zooms you can buy, without going nuts on the price. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-135mm.htm
Each of these are:
Reasonably affordable for what you get
Have more reasonable ranges, resulting in better IQ
Have much better build quality, and full time manual focus(i think all 3 have it) which means you can easily just turn the focus ring for focus tweaks without changing the switch on the lens from AF to M, which may not seem like that big a deal, but its nice.
200mm on a crop = 320mm, which is just really excessive in a standard zoom unless you have some specific need for it.
18mm is really wide, and actually quite a difficult range to master, I dont think its essential to go that wide on your "standard zoom" as you wont really use it all that much. For peanuts you can pick up the kit 18-55mm II($60) or the 18-55mm IS($90) that will give you that range for the 1% of the time you really need it.
At the end of the day, a fixed 50mm lens will force you to move around to recompose your shots, letting you explore angles you otherwise wouldn't have and teaching you a very valuable lesson to not just sit still and twiddle your zoom all day.
Hmm you're making some valid points there by the looks of it... crap! :P. I got it for 459 euros (~628$ :O). Especially your argument about moving around to make good photo's in stead of standing still seems valid, even though i'm a lazy ass :P.
Crap! You made me actually consider returning it next monday... evil you! :P.
On a serious not though, thank you so much for takig the time to write all this stuff out for me and the rest of the pc community .
You'll notice these primes cover a similar range to the zooms I recommended above, because this range will cover 95% of your actual photography use, unless you're going to be taking mainly super wide architectural or landscape shots, or need a super long tele for bird watching or something like that.
Grab some cheap ass zooms later to cover the more exotic wide/tele ranges.
When i was on a olympus system then even the cheap zoom lens were doing food job. I believe everything else you would need to spend a lot of money on a zoom lens in order to be able to compare the results with a prime lens.
I already recommended the 50mm 1.8 earlier and it could be even back in this thread. Why is it so good ?
Because it is actually very difficult to use it but that makes you think so much more. I cant even describe how much this has changed my photography.
First lets face it shooting wide open it is not easy - at least for me so you will learn one way or the other what to do and what not to do. Second you will have to move with your feet in order to get better frame which somehow makes you understand what you are looking for in that photograph. It will also let you explore different angles that may be would not happen if you had a zoom lens.
Also last but not least it is still one of the best lenses out there and not even because it is so cheap .. i did not do a test but from just looking at my pictures taken with 50mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.8 they are the same to me
Go for it you will only be happy about it
I just got my 24mm f/2.8 and I loooooooooooove it! Not that expensive and is a bit more versital when walking around with it compared to the 50mm on a digital crop! I've read somewhere it should have some chromatic abberation problems, but I haven't found them so far and it's super sharp past f/4.
Tamron 28-70 is a very solid zoom lens, provided you get the non-motor version (which is long discontinued I think?)
Not sure how it'll perform on your 1000d though..no built in motor (correct me if I'm wrong)
Do you mean the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8? FYI, all AF lenses on canon need in-lens motor focusing. 28-75mm isn't a particularly great range, but its not bad I guess, and a 2.8 zoom for ~$300 is actually a pretty awesome price, when you consider the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L sells for $1000+, and the sigma 24-70mm 2.8 sells for $650.
Still, a Canon 28mm 2.8 + 50mm 1.8 would cover a similar range(sure you're missing out on ~35mm and ~75mm) and be faster/sharper, for the same price.
Just bought a Sigma 24mm 1.8 on eBay, to use alongside the 50. Gotta stop the spending a bit now, even though 300 seems like a decent price. Damn you EQ and your convincing advice!
24mm is nice, and 1.8 is great speed for that lens, if its anything like my 30mm 1.4 i'm sure you'll love it. Eventually I think i'll get a 20 or 24mm for the wide end, but for now 30mm is wide enough for most of my uses.
These ultra wides(well 24 isn't technically one) have such large depth of field that I find them difficult to use, I guess I rely way too much on bokeh, and have a lot to learn about proper composition!
So today I went back to the store, and found out they don't return money, only value checks. I thought that was understandable, but had to make a decision: keep my 1000D, change the lens for a 50mm 1.8 and get an extra 28mm 2.8 already OR change everything (except for memory card and bag etc.) for a 550D and a 50mm 1.8, then get the 28mm later. The latter is the option I decided upoon, because I felt this would grant me time to really get to know this lens before buying a second one, and now I have a better body with film function . The poor salesman had to pack everything up again :P.
So now i have: Canon 550D body with canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens. Yay!
Thank you all for your advice, and expect some pictures in the post one picture thread (and maybe a pic of my cat for EQ's bd thread when i'm at my parents' again).
edit: oh, and I still have like 50 euros left as a value check, which i can use for the 28mm when the time comes.
You made the right choice I can guarantee you'll be picking up a wide lens, but enjoy the 50 (and treat it with care, those things fall apart pretty easily :P)
So now i have: Canon 550D body with canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens. Yay!
Yay indeed! This is a much better kit. You'll have fun with the video stuff. With the 1000D you'd probably be yearning for an upgrade in 1-2 years, which is a shame if you're buying new, the 550D has pretty much every feature on some level that the highest end Canon's have, there really isn't much separating it from the $1800 7D aside from ergonomics, so it should last you a good deal longer.
edit: oh, and I still have like 50 euros left as a value check, which i can use for the 28mm when the time comes.
Remember to check out the used market for this, you may save $100-200 euros by buying this used online, instead of in a retail store, in which case you can use that 50 euros for a tripod or a camera bag.
Great decision:) I feel so comfortable having those couple of threads about cameras here on Polycount! When I said this what other forums about photography do you guys visit?
this is a Russian site and for me is the best one out there especially if wee are talking about portraits. I do understand a bit of russian but it is all pictures any way so dont let that spoil it for you.
Hah, you're open to Ken Rockwell, EQ? Opinions over him are divided apparently, interesting to see that someone with an often strong opinion like you is not in the KR hater camp
I've been going to his site a lot ever since I started looking into gear, always very clear and well researched. Though I have to agree his own photo's aren't that special...
Anyway, we have a big belgian forum, but I only tend to go there to check the sales part, seems too full of amateurs and people butt-kissing each other
No thank you.. is it supposed to be much more expensive?
I am from Bulgaria.
After I learned what lens is for what and I found out what camera do I want I dont really care about the new or old lens out there. I am not really going to spend any more money on anything except may be 85 mm 1.8
About my photographs I am trying to find my own style and I will probably try to emphasize on the eastern feeling a bit more in my future photographs... once I find time
Edit : I know what you mean Xoliul I go to a Bulgarian forum for the gear part myself and there a lot of those but- kissing people there as well but if i have to be honest some of the big photographers here have very strong influence on me Also they often organize workshops which is great because most of the time there is a big company like sony or nikon spending hips of money for advertising so it turns out very very cheap
Hah, you're open to Ken Rockwell, EQ? Opinions over him are divided apparently, interesting to see that someone with an often strong opinion like you is not in the KR hater camp
I've been going to his site a lot ever since I started looking into gear, always very clear and well researched. Though I have to agree his own photo's aren't that special...
Anyway, we have a big belgian forum, but I only tend to go there to check the sales part, seems too full of amateurs and people butt-kissing each other
I find his advice on gear second to none, and while I dont always agree with everything he has to say, his reviews are always very realistic, instead of comparing MTF charts and theoretical sharpness or whatever crap that has no real impact on photography.
Oh also, another thing with Rockwell, he has a shit ton of reviews, and generally has a writeup for every lens that i'm looking into buying. As well as the ones I already have, which makes it very relatable when looking for gear if he has a write up on it.
Blaizer: any particular reason you like that site? IMO for cameras and camera bodies, www.dpreview.com is the best possible place. Most indepth reviews I've ever seen.
How come FX is better than DX format for low light? Just noise performance? Seems to be pretty good on the D7000, which I thought is an awesome camera already? I wouldn't buy it as my first thought, a bit pricey for being a first DSLR imo. I would definitely consider it as an upgrade though.
FX cameras have bigger sensors (same size as 35mm film), which means bigger pixels. Bigger pixels = more light gathered. It's the reason why megapixels are overrated, especially in smaller sensors.
Fullframe is going to be better than a crop body for low light, however, switching from a cheap compact camera, to a proper slr(read: virtually any dslr) and a fast lens, is going to give you muchhhhh better low light performance.
ISO 1600 on my DSLR is comparable to ISO 400 on my compact, and my lens is about a stop faster, so I can do lowlight in roughly 8x less light with my dSLR. And this is a Canon 350D from about 8 years ago, if you can find something with good ISO 3200, and usable 6400, you'll be set.
So what does it all mean? You dont need to fork over $1000+ on a full frame body, any midrange dSLR is going to give you excellent low light performance coming from a compact camera.
Also, remember this!!! If you want to do lowlight, the most important thing is a fast lens, sure you can pay 5x on a camera body to get a 3 stop improvement in noise performance, however, if you're using that camera with a slow zoom lens, you've just lost that 3 stop improvement over even the cheap 50mm 1.8.
And something else : D7000 it is supposed to be excellent camera and there is nothing bad to jump on it if you have the money not sure how much of it you will appreciate if it is your first dslr but why not. Just make sure you have enough money for a good lens because this is a new camera with many many pixels on a small sensor and not like any other camera this require a very good and expensive lens I read this somewhere never seen this camera
Yeah, as we get more and more MP in cameras, and quality MP, not just more noise, the lens becomes a serious limitation, because if your camera shoots 20mp, but your lens only resolves 9MP worth of detail, its not worth it to spend so much on an expensive camera....
Also, who the hell needs 16mp(D7000) or 21mp(5D Mark II)?!?
Thanks for the sound advice, gonna do a little more research to see what will suit my needs. Like you say i don't wanna jump in the deep end just yet with a full-frame camera, being such a novice, but i don't wanna go the opposite and get something thats cheap and doesn't suit my needs then end up changing the body a few months later.
Also one more novice question, would shallow DOF be a problem shooting at F/1.8 50mm or is this only the case with long focal lengths?
It is just a bit tricky at first there is no problem even at lower f stop. You just need to be extra careful because if you are doing a head shot it will make difference if you focus on the eye or the nose and you also can't recompose .. not sure for the correct word for this but when you set your focus point, focus on something that you want to be in focus and then move your camera slightly in order to frame your subject better. I use to do this all the time when i was shooting with slower lens at f/4 and when i started with the 50mm 1.8 all of my pictures were mess. I was even afraid my camera was being a ****
disanski: you can actually "recompose", (don't know if it's the correct word either ). In your camera settings you can set the AF to "one shot" or "AI Servo". (and there's a third middle option which doesn't make sense to me yet).
The one shot setting auto focusses once, when you half-press the shutter button, and the ai servo setting keeps autofocussing while half-pressing the shutter button.
I've been having lots of fun already, even though i only took some pictures indoors so far. I have a feeling I generally already know what DOF and exposure time i must set it to to get clean results, and am still experimenting with the white balance settings and the ISO thingie.
EDIT: oh wait, now that I reread your reply it seems like you're saying it will be out of focus because it's sooo sensitive, rather than saying you can't keep it focused. Sorry for sounding all smart-ass like (A).
Disanski: One thing i've started to do when I re-compose, esp with the 30mm 1.4 close up, is to "pan" instead of "rotate" to recompose, this will generally ensure that your focus point stays more accurate, but yeah with fast lenses, even a slight movement can mess up the focal plane. I always shoot in continuous with these type of shots, and fire off 3 frames or so and pick the best one later, because even a slight tilt in your posture can affect focus as well
Hheh yep that is what i had in mind. You can do it but you have to be extra careful and think about the focusing plane because it is very very sensitive at a wide aperture (even angle wise if you can imagine) it I learned this the hard way taking so many pictures and the result was ... damn
edit :P I just saw your post EQ
yep this is the way I try to do it as well but still not very consistent results so I only use it when i dont care so much about the focus cause I know it might not be there This is the one lilmitation of not having enough AF points on my old camera and i would not care so much if it was not that I want to take shots and compose them at the time of the shooting with no need of cropping when I get back home and now i have to consider the AF point as well and you can imagine how big the viewfinder is on the full frame and the AF points are just being spread near the center
Edit 2 I just got set of reflectors similar to those http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/358608-REG/Impact_R1142_5_in_1_Reflector_Disc.html
Blaizer: any particular reason you like that site? IMO for cameras and camera bodies, www.dpreview.com is the best possible place. Most indepth reviews I've ever seen.
It's just another great site for camera and lenses reviews, clear info with videos, picture samples, etc. They also compare you the models they review with other brand models with similar specifications.
Replies
I am not very technical so i dont know the details but let me give you an example
But dont take my word for it because i am still very new to this and up til 1 year ago i was only taking pictures for fun and not really trying to understand what was i doing and I am still very new at this.
For me it comes down to this - are you happy with it or not
Was i happy with my d90 -- no
Sorry if i could not give you more detailed answer
This could also be due to poorly calibrated lens-body combo. My 50mm has always seemed fine, and I had sigma service my 30mm as it was way off(as is common with these lenses) I send me body+lens to them and they synced it up. However the 5D lets you manually tweak the front/rear focus on a per lens basis!
Unlike oldschool lenses that relied on extreme precision in manufacturing, AF lenses are calibrated electronically, or "in software" to within a certain tolerance, if your body and lens happen to be on the wrong sides of that tolerance, you can have issues and having Canon service it may help, but probably not worth the cost for cheap equipment unless its under warranty.
Also I am sure that by now i learned a bit and it might be normal that i am more careful and think more while shooting wide open - which I do all the time.
I have seen so many great pictures taken with lower class cameras and a lot of photographers with big exhibition and they made it all with lets say 450d .. that is why i posted that video about the iphone
I think once you get in to this it all becomes very personal ..
I am sorry if my post sounded like all the lower class cameras are no good - this is just how it worked for me so far ,
Also, i'm surprised to hear you've only been shooting for about a year, as your shots look like you have much more experience than that! I've actually only been shooting with my dSLR for about a year as well.
The 5d has the same AF as the 20 d as far as i know and it is even the same on the 5d mark 2 and it only has one cross sensor in the center. I found that used 5d before I found out that it only has one cross sensor AF but the nikon d90 was gone already so i just went for it
It has many downsides compared to newer cameras but those are not important for me for now. The other thing I am very happy about is that i can sell it now if I wanted to and not loose any money from it ( not that i am going to)
Currently I am trying to decide should i get new lens or sign up for a short class for intermediate photographers....
Edit :
Thanks for the compliment EQ. As i said i had my olympus for almost 3 years before that but i was using it on auto
Also just now I started editing my photographs and messing with the colors and playing with the mood.
I have to say it is a huge distraction for me and i am even thinking about giving it to someone during the week so i can concentrate more on the 3d
Up until now I've always bought brand new lenses but lately I feel I need to step it up a little... unfortunately the price-tags of said lens were not quick to follow but way ahead.
Maybe it's just a trust issue...
Hey and very cool that you've only being doing things for a year, I really wouldn't have been able to tell from your pictures. I hope to see the same sort of results for me in a year. Maybe I should consider a course too. I've even been thinking about going back to school part-time to study photography, not sure if I can combine that with my job though.
I was thinking about it, photography compared to 3D, it's just very satisfying to create nice images with such "limited" possibilities compared to 3D, where you can basically do anything, but it takes sooo much more work. Part of the want of going back to school comes from just wanting to be busy with it a lot more.
So about lenses, i still don't quite understand what the deal is:
the 'standard' lens is 35mm right? and then you have 50mm which is more of a landscape lens or something? aaargh! :P haha. The mm classify the lens' width and the f the distance of the focal point to the lens? Yeah i'm n00b :P.
So if you want a "standard" lens, getting a 35mm makes sense because it becomes a 50mm when you attach it to a APS-C camera.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm
even when you understand what the numbers mean you might still be confused about what lens are better for portrait or landscapes
So for portraits you would probably get something between 50 - 135 mm and if possible with bigger aperture so you can blur the background and have your subject stand out.
For landscaper most likely you need something like 35 mm or less but those are just guides and you can shoot portraits with any lens out there if you know what you are doing
A 50mm is ~ 85mm on digital crop, so its considered a good portrait lens.
One thing that is very important to remember however, a 35mm lens is still a 35mm lens, and a 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens when it comes to lens characteristics, on a crop body the view is just cropped, the optical aspects of the lens is not altered.
So, a 35mm lens is still a wide angle lens, and is going to have a more exaggerated perspective distortion, exaggerate the relationships between objects, where a 50mm is closest to how the eye sees, which is why everything wider or shorter is called something other than "normal". A 85mm lens(and longer) compresses perspective, which can be very pleasing for faces etc, as you avoid the "fisheye" look that is so unattractive for people.
In addition to perspective distortion, we also have focusing characteristics , the wider the lens is, the sooner it hits infinity. My 30mm lens hits infinity at about 10 feet, and my 50mm hits it at probably 30 feet, a 85mm likely hits it at 50 feet or further. Now, this is important when it comes to out of focus blurriness, as after 10 feet, the depth of field is essentially infinite on my 30mm lens, so you've gotta be quite close to you subject to get nice out of focus highlights. Even thought my 50mm lens is a tad slower, it provides much more background blur in every situation except really close up. So while a 30mm lens on a crop is a great general purpose lens, a 50mm lens on a full frame camera is always better. Not to say my 30mm lens isnt good, its just not a 50mm lens.
On the reverse side of that, an 85mm lens produces even better out of focus areas than a 50mm lens, the Canon 85mm 1.8 lens produces "more" bokeh(out of focus highlights) than a the 50mm 1.8, even though they are the same speed. Which is another reason why 85mm lenses are considered portrait lenses, and getting creamy out of focus backgrounds is essential to portraiture, so while a 50mm lens has no "wide" type perspective distortion and has a similar view to a 85mm on crop, it is not an actual portrait lens, but makes a very good facsimile.
Now, a 35mm lens carries with it the least amount of perspective distortion of "wide angle" lenses, so it makes a great general purpose lens, either on full frame or crop. But a 50mm or 85mm will always be considered as better for taking pictures of people, that is not to say that you cant take pictures of people with a 35mm lens of course.
Now, as far as what lens you should buy, if you just want 1 lens, I would go with a 35mm lens. otherwise, I would start with a 50mm lens, and then get a 28mm lens shortly afterwords, as a 50mm an a 35mm lens would represent a very limited range.
Traditional lens classification:
Superwide(on crop) 10-15mm
Fisheye generally 8-15mm
Superwide 16-20mm
Wide angle 24-35mm
Normal 40-60mm
Portrait 85-135mm
Telephoto 135mm +
So, in my mind, a good kit would consist of:
Cheap-o 18-55mm kit lens to get really wide shots on crop, this will be used less often so its ok to go with a cheap zoom
Canon 28mm 2.8, Canon 28mm 1.8 or Sigma 30mm 1.4, depending on budget
Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 85mm 1.8
Cheap-o telephoto zoom for like the 75-300mm, 80-200mm, 55-200mm etc, again cheap because I would use these a lot less often. I have a Canon 80-200mm II because it is super small and light, not the best optical quality, but unlike a super expensive and heavy L series zoom, I would actually put it in my bag and take it with me.
Didn't think I was going to find the perfect thread for my camera on polycount. I thought I made a good decision buying it but now you have me really sold. I'm only half way through the thread, just had to stop and tell you of my amazement.
Thanks again
Edit: Ok I read the whole thing and it looks like I want an EF 50mm 1.8 in the near future as my first lens.
I also can't get enough good advice from Ben Mathis, I have read the first few posts on your photo blog a couple months back , of course very inspiring to see your success follow to the camera.
So today i did it, turned out differnt than i expected because the store guy gave me some advice as well. What i got now is:
Canon EOS 1000D with a zoom lens: EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6. I asked him about the 50mm lens (they had it for 129 euros) but he told me that'd be a good option, but because you only have that set mm thingie it'd be better to buy a zoom lens first (even though it has a less good f value) so i could first experience what kind of pictures i like taking.
Anyway just trying to point out why I think that lens is fun, it makes me try photographing people, something I never considered before.
You definitely want a 50mm to start with, hell, I think you should return that 18-200mm. How much did you spend on it? You can likely buy 2-3 good used prime lenses instead. A zoom like that is a only really a good choice for someone who wants casual use, and isn't ever going to take the time to learn much about photography, just wants an "easy" lens.
The ONLY thing it gives you is added convenience.
Zooms are:
Slower, and have variable apertures
Not as sharp
Have less contrast
Have more chromatic aberrations and other defects
Have more barrel distortion
Unless you've got a $1000+ L series zoom or something, a couple prime lenses will beat the shit out a zoom. I dont think its a bad idea to have a zoom to learn the focal ranges you'll need, but that 18-200mm lens is what, $400 or more? Its just way to much to pay for a mediocre zoom lens, pretty much anything with that much zoom range has to make serious compromises to image quality.
If you really want something with a massive amount of range, get a older used Tamron 28-200mm, which you can find on bay or like $90. You'll be using either lens to simply figure out which ranges you like to use, and get a better prime or zoom lens anyway, it may as well be a cheap lens.
If you're dead set on getting a zoom, take a look at these, which all should be cheaper, and offering less zoom range; will offer better image quality.
Canon EF 24-85mm 3.5-4.5, $160-250 used, 24mm is pretty wide on a digital crop, certaily wide enough for 99% of uses, and it goes out to a 85mm "portrait" type range. This is a good walk around general purpose lens if you dont need the longer telephoto ranges, but most likely you dont really.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-24-85mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Canon EF 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 $140-200 used, similar to the above, this has a little less wide and a little more on the long end. You need to get the earlier version of this lens however, as newer shitier versions have been made.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-28-105mm-f-3.5-4.5-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Canon EF 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 $225-300 used, a bit more range on the long end again and IS feature as well, 135mm on a crop body will actually give you a very good amount of reach. A little slower on the back end, however the IS more than makes up for it. This is one of the best general purpose zooms you can buy, without going nuts on the price.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-135mm.htm
Each of these are:
Reasonably affordable for what you get
Have more reasonable ranges, resulting in better IQ
Have much better build quality, and full time manual focus(i think all 3 have it) which means you can easily just turn the focus ring for focus tweaks without changing the switch on the lens from AF to M, which may not seem like that big a deal, but its nice.
200mm on a crop = 320mm, which is just really excessive in a standard zoom unless you have some specific need for it.
18mm is really wide, and actually quite a difficult range to master, I dont think its essential to go that wide on your "standard zoom" as you wont really use it all that much. For peanuts you can pick up the kit 18-55mm II($60) or the 18-55mm IS($90) that will give you that range for the 1% of the time you really need it.
At the end of the day, a fixed 50mm lens will force you to move around to recompose your shots, letting you explore angles you otherwise wouldn't have and teaching you a very valuable lesson to not just sit still and twiddle your zoom all day.
Crap! You made me actually consider returning it next monday... evil you! :P.
On a serious not though, thank you so much for takig the time to write all this stuff out for me and the rest of the pc community
Canon EF 28mm 2.8 $180 - wide
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-28mm-f-2.8-Lens-Review.aspx
Canon EF 50mm 1.8 $70-80, or $100 new - normal
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f18.htm
Canon EF 85mm 1.8 $350 - portrait/short tele(~135mm on crop). OR Canon EF 100mm 2.0(160mm) for the same price
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/85mm.htm
----
$630 USD ^^ awesomesauce kit
You'll notice these primes cover a similar range to the zooms I recommended above, because this range will cover 95% of your actual photography use, unless you're going to be taking mainly super wide architectural or landscape shots, or need a super long tele for bird watching or something like that.
Grab some cheap ass zooms later to cover the more exotic wide/tele ranges.
Not sure how it'll perform on your 1000d though..no built in motor (correct me if I'm wrong)
I already recommended the 50mm 1.8 earlier and it could be even back in this thread. Why is it so good ?
Because it is actually very difficult to use it but that makes you think so much more. I cant even describe how much this has changed my photography.
First lets face it shooting wide open it is not easy - at least for me
Also last but not least it is still one of the best lenses out there and not even because it is so cheap .. i did not do a test but from just looking at my pictures taken with 50mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.8 they are the same to me
Go for it you will only be happy about it
I think I love it more then my 50mm
Btw Earthquake, there's no AF microadjustment on the original 5D. Canon didn't implement it til 50D, 5D Mk2 and the 1D/Ds Mk3.
@Japhir: I only ever listen to salesmen if I've done my research
Yep there is no microadjustment on 5d classic.
Do you mean the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8? FYI, all AF lenses on canon need in-lens motor focusing. 28-75mm isn't a particularly great range, but its not bad I guess, and a 2.8 zoom for ~$300 is actually a pretty awesome price, when you consider the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L sells for $1000+, and the sigma 24-70mm 2.8 sells for $650.
Still, a Canon 28mm 2.8 + 50mm 1.8 would cover a similar range(sure you're missing out on ~35mm and ~75mm) and be faster/sharper, for the same price.
These ultra wides(well 24 isn't technically one) have such large depth of field that I find them difficult to use, I guess I rely way too much on bokeh, and have a lot to learn about proper composition!
So now i have: Canon 550D body with canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens. Yay!
Thank you all for your advice, and expect some pictures in the post one picture thread (and maybe a pic of my cat for EQ's bd thread when i'm at my parents' again).
edit: oh, and I still have like 50 euros left as a value check, which i can use for the 28mm when the time comes.
Yay indeed! This is a much better kit. You'll have fun with the video stuff. With the 1000D you'd probably be yearning for an upgrade in 1-2 years, which is a shame if you're buying new, the 550D has pretty much every feature on some level that the highest end Canon's have, there really isn't much separating it from the $1800 7D aside from ergonomics, so it should last you a good deal longer.
Remember to check out the used market for this, you may save $100-200 euros by buying this used online, instead of in a retail store, in which case you can use that 50 euros for a tripod or a camera bag.
http://35photo.ru/
this is a Russian site and for me is the best one out there especially if wee are talking about portraits. I do understand a bit of russian but it is all pictures any way
I dont really visit and photography forums specifically, I spend more time researching gear than anything, for the stuff I buy/sell on ebay.
And for that;
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/
http://www.kenrockwell.com/
Anyone want a Zuiko 18mm 3.5? Only $1000.....
I've been going to his site a lot ever since I started looking into gear, always very clear and well researched. Though I have to agree his own photo's aren't that special...
Anyway, we have a big belgian forum, but I only tend to go there to check the sales part, seems too full of amateurs and people butt-kissing each other
I am from Bulgaria.
After I learned what lens is for what and I found out what camera do I want I dont really care about the new or old lens out there. I am not really going to spend any more money on anything except may be 85 mm 1.8
About my photographs I am trying to find my own style and I will probably try to emphasize on the eastern feeling a bit more in my future photographs... once I find time
Edit : I know what you mean Xoliul
I find his advice on gear second to none, and while I dont always agree with everything he has to say, his reviews are always very realistic, instead of comparing MTF charts and theoretical sharpness or whatever crap that has no real impact on photography.
Plenty of reviews there.
Blaizer: any particular reason you like that site? IMO for cameras and camera bodies, www.dpreview.com is the best possible place. Most indepth reviews I've ever seen.
Mainly to do low light stuff in general.
ISO 1600 on my DSLR is comparable to ISO 400 on my compact, and my lens is about a stop faster, so I can do lowlight in roughly 8x less light with my dSLR. And this is a Canon 350D from about 8 years ago, if you can find something with good ISO 3200, and usable 6400, you'll be set.
So what does it all mean? You dont need to fork over $1000+ on a full frame body, any midrange dSLR is going to give you excellent low light performance coming from a compact camera.
Also, remember this!!! If you want to do lowlight, the most important thing is a fast lens, sure you can pay 5x on a camera body to get a 3 stop improvement in noise performance, however, if you're using that camera with a slow zoom lens, you've just lost that 3 stop improvement over even the cheap 50mm 1.8.
Also, who the hell needs 16mp(D7000) or 21mp(5D Mark II)?!?
Also one more novice question, would shallow DOF be a problem shooting at F/1.8 50mm or is this only the case with long focal lengths?
The one shot setting auto focusses once, when you half-press the shutter button, and the ai servo setting keeps autofocussing while half-pressing the shutter button.
I've been having lots of fun already, even though i only took some pictures indoors so far. I have a feeling I generally already know what DOF and exposure time i must set it to to get clean results, and am still experimenting with the white balance settings and the ISO thingie.
EDIT: oh wait, now that I reread your reply it seems like you're saying it will be out of focus because it's sooo sensitive, rather than saying you can't keep it focused. Sorry for sounding all smart-ass like (A).
edit :P I just saw your post EQ
yep this is the way I try to do it as well but still not very consistent results so I only use it when i dont care so much about the focus cause I know it might not be there
Edit 2
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/358608-REG/Impact_R1142_5_in_1_Reflector_Disc.html
and I have a model for Thursday afternoon
It's just another great site for camera and lenses reviews, clear info with videos, picture samples, etc. They also compare you the models they review with other brand models with similar specifications.