So i think im gonna go for the cheaper and older D90 with a 50mm 1.4G prime lens. Doesn't seem that different from the D7000 apart from a few features, yet the D90 is half the price.
Is it worth bothering getting the cheap 18 -105 zoom lens with it, or should i put this extra cash towards another prime lens?
I think this is a good decision. The d90 is not as good as the d7000 by many features but I believe d90 is a better camera for a start and I use to have one and it is not bad at all It fits so damn well in the hand.
I dont know nothing about the 18-105 .... prime lens just feel so much better to me
I had the 50mm 1.8 and it was great lens just fantastic I could not believe it
I think the post one nice picture thread is going to rapidly grow
Yeah, instead of the 50/1.4 I would get the cheap 50/1.8, and the cheap 35/1.8 or the 28mm 2.8, its possible you could get all 3 for near the price of the 50/1.4
50/1.8 $100
35/1.8 $190
28/2.8 $150
USED = $440
50/1.4 $350-450 new
$200-300 used
Something to think about =D
28/2.8 $150
50/1.8 $100
85/1.8 $300
^ Would also be a nice kit, I think i'd opt for the 85mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.4, as the 85mm will have better bokeh.
The thing with both the Nikon and Canon 50mm 1.4 lenses is, they're only marginally better than the 1.8 counterparts, but cost 3x more to buy, so its a bad choice for a beginner, or really most people in general, unless you really need what the lens does better. Which would be a little sharper at 2.0, a little better bokeh, and a hair faster.
Oh also, the way lenses work, you can get sharper shots the wider the lens is with the same amount of light and shutter speed, the longer a lens is the more its prone to "motion blur" from small movements of the camera. So in reality, the 35mm 1.8 isn't much slower than the 50mm 1.4, and 35mm on a crop body is a better general purpose lens. So getting the 35/1.8 for general purpose, and the 50mm/1.8 for portraits isnt a bad idea.
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 have never read a helpful Ken Rockwell review. He is either republishing press releases verbatim, or when he does offer opinion, it's either horribly wrong, or outright crazy.
Anyone who shoots jpeg only with saturation at the maximum has questionable opinions.
Forget the Fuji Finepix X100. I just looked at this sample gallery, and the images are soft, low-contrast, lower resolution, and boring compared to my D7000, much less the full-resolution samples I share in my new Route 66 Gallery from a LEICA M9. Who are Fuji trying to kid; children who think iPhones are cool? I love Fuji Fuji Velvia 50! Now that's photography! When you can get this from a Fuji digital camera, wake me up.
The x100 looks like it is going to be the best aps-c sensor put out so far. It has useable ISO 6400, incredible dynamic range even in jpegs (that's what he is mistakingly labeling "low contrast"), and offers the first large sensor experience in a small body WITH an optical viewfinder. Bonus with manual shutter and aperture dials. In fact it's funny he mentions the d700 because a Norwegian reviewer briefly had head to head images from the d7000 vs the X100 before Fuji asked them to remove them, and they were as sharp despite having 6 megapixels less, but showed lower noise and higher dynamic range at those high ISOs (dark tones were still clearly discernible on the x100 but had bled into black on the d7000)
I'm planning to get one, have researched it well, and his thoughts on it are directly counter to reality as someone knowledgeable on gear would be.
Oh also, the way lenses work, you can get sharper shots the wider the lens is with the same amount of light and shutter speed, the longer a lens is the more its prone to "motion blur" from small movements of the camera. So in reality, the 35mm 1.8 isn't much slower than the 50mm 1.4, and 35mm on a crop body is a better general purpose lens. So getting the 35/1.8 for general purpose, and the 50mm/1.8 for portraits isnt a bad idea.
To explain this further:
On a 50mm on a full frame for most people is handholdable at 1/50 of a second. On a crop body since it shows an 85ish field of view you need more like 1/80th.
This means a 30mm needs 1/30 on ff or 1/50 on a crop.
Just a heads up for anyone in the market for a camera in the near future. Pay very close attention to the new Fuji X100. www.finepix-x100.com
Pros:
APS-c sized sensor (think 60d, d7000, Nex, etc)
450 gram small body, it's smaller than any DSLR
metal body, manual dials for aperture and shutter
syncs with flash at 1/1,000 at f/2 (no camera ever before could do this) and 1/4,000 at f/8 (also never done before)
ultra sharp f/2 35mm equivalent lens (with 9 aperture blades, this makes smoother out of focus areas, most cheapo lenses have 5-7, and nice lenses 9-11)
Optical viewfinder that can project a HUD with details OR an actual live feed from the sensor, it's a hybrid OVF/EVF
built in 3 stop ND filter, meaning you can actually shoot at f/2 in broad daylight if you want to isolate your subject with a blurry background.
incredible ISO performance. ISO 6400 looks like ISO 1600 on my 5D original.
Comes with silkypix, not a crappy proprietary editor that no one uses. Silkypix is kind of a poor man's lightroom, but it has all the same functionality and is much nicer than DPP or the other first party editors.
Can do motion panoramas like the Sony Nex cameras. (hold down the button and slowly pan, it stitches them together in camera) bonus built in electronic level.
Quick wake time, .01 second shutter lag, and fast AF
Cons:
Not out yet (grrr) coming mid-to-late March
1,200 USD
Fixed lens. It's 35mm field of view (no changing of lenses)
If you like the 35mm fov (it's my personal favorite) this camera is going to be killer. Tiny, light, no image quality sacrifices. I know for sure it will be used far more than my 5D and I am even pondering selling my 5D at this point. I use 35mm more than any other lens, and I hate how my 5D with a quality 35mm lens is 1.5 kilos and the size of a lunchbox.
I'll be posting a review when I get mine, but I am ultra stoked.
Looking at used lenses on ebay( .co.uk! ), to see for yourself, log in to ebay(create an account if you dont have one) and then search for "completed listings" you'll see what stuff is actually selling for.
It looks like this is what stuff is selling for:
I'm not sure how affordable/unaffordable those prices are, but it looks like most are a decent % less than amazon, and any other retail you'll find i'm sure.
You're buying used from eBay, but there is nothing wrong with that. Just try to find a listing that seems legit, has good detailed photos of the item, and seems like its being sold by someone who knows cameras. On top of this the best thing to remember about ebay is:
The buyer is always right! If you buy something listed as in good working condition, get it, and it is NOT, it does not matter if the seller says "as is" or "no returns" or if they refuse to give you your money back. All you do is file a claim with ebay and tell them the item is "Not as described" and as long as that is true, ebay will force the seller to refund your entire cost + shipping and in some cases even pay for your return shipping. I know this all too well as an eBay seller. 99.9% of the time a buyer has a legitimate case, ebay will side with you, and not the seller.
I could get the 50 and 28 or the 50 and 35 and then see where i can go from there.
The 28mm and 50mm will provide more range, and is a very good starting kit(what I started with) however the 35mm is such a nice lens on a crop body, and at 1.8, its hard not to recommend, however 35+50mm is a pretty limited range.
you better use these cameras almost all the days!!! 1200 dollars for that fuji is way too expensive, with that money i update 2 computers with i7 2600k :S
prices are very very expensive.. and for those lenses, cough cough
I'm aiming towards a cheaper nikon d5000 but the new canon eos 600 will make 500 cheaper!
I have never read a helpful Ken Rockwell review. He is either republishing press releases verbatim, or when he does offer opinion, it's either horribly wrong, or outright crazy.
Anyone who shoots jpeg only with saturation at the maximum has questionable opinions.
I dont really pay attention to his camera reviews, mostly just the lenses. He has reviews for most of Canon and Nikon's standard primes, so its good to read in that you can compare his thoughts on a particular lens to another, easily.
He does make some retarded claims of course, like saying you should only use medium format film if you want sharp images or whatever, clearly a bit of a nutter.
DPreview has such good camera reviews, why go anywhere else?
That Fuji looks slick, and if I was rich I would probably buy one, but I gotta think a better buy would be a Pana GF*, Oly EP*, or Sony Nex, as they're a lot cheaper, about the same size, come with similar pancake lens options, but also allow you to use... Virtually any 35mm lens ever made.... I've been thinking of a 43 format camera for a while to use with a rather larger pile of OM mount Zuikos, or some of those worthless FD and MD mount lenses, but can't really stomach the price just to play around with old MF lenses.
x100 does look pretty damn sweet.
Am i right in thinking that it supposed to operate in a more rangefinder kind of way?
Sort of, it has an offset viewfinder that is glass but doesn't look through the lens, like a rangefinder, but the name rangefinder comes from the fact it uses two viewfinders and overlays them, like your eyes, to "find the range" of the focus. As you focus the lens that is mechanically rangefinder coupled like on a Leica M camera, the two images move until the subject you desire is overlapping. The X100 does not do this, it shows you an optical view, an AF square you can use for autofocus, and a framing line for framing that is parallax corrected, or a live feed from the sensor via an LCD projected onto a prism, but it's not a rangefinder in the technical sense.
you better use these cameras almost all the days!!! 1200 dollars for that fuji is way too expensive, with that money i update 2 computers with i7 2600k :S
prices are very very expensive.. and for those lenses, cough cough
I'm aiming towards a cheaper nikon d5000 but the new canon eos 600 will make 500 cheaper!
I could also buy 5 pallettes of Q-tips, or 5,000 bags of potato chips for 1,200 dollars. You could also not even put a downpayment on a house for that much. Why compare it to things it is not?
You meant to say that 1,200 is too expensive *for you* and what you want out of a camera. For me, I have the money to spend on it, and it fits my camera needs exactly, to the point I might sell my other gear which is worth more than the cost of the X100. If your only goal is to get the cheapest camera possible that isn't a point and shoot, buy a 1000d and a 50mm 1.8. Some of us have more needs than just cheap, and paying a bit more for that exact tool is worth it. This is the only small camera, with a large sensor, a good lens, and an optical viewfinder. For people who hate composing at arms length, or looking at a tiny electronic EVF, there is no solution other than lugging around a hefty DSLR, and that can get tiring. I don't buy and upgrade cameras like some people do telephones. I've used the same camera for 3 years now, and I have nothing smaller than a lunchbox to take photos with, and I'm not willing to sacrifice image quality to go with a point and shoot, and film is ludicrously expensive in Iceland to develop.
You can buy 5 generic aiptek tablets for the cost of an intuos, but plenty of artists say the quality and build and functionality of the intuos is worth the price premium. The same can be said about car models, power tools, furniture, glasses, speakers, etc etc.
Checked Ebay and can't say i'm a fan of it tbh, but the prices are better.
After a little more searching around i can get the camera body, plus the 4 lenses brand new for around £1300 ($2100).
Don't know weather to go this route or just get the 28mm and 50mm to start.
DPreview has such good camera reviews, why go anywhere else?
That Fuji looks slick, and if I was rich I would probably buy one, but I gotta think a better buy would be a Pana GF*, Oly EP*, or Sony Nex, as they're a lot cheaper, about the same size, come with similar pancake lens options, but also allow you to use... Virtually any 35mm lens ever made.... I've been thinking of a 43 format camera for a while to use with a rather larger pile of OM mount Zuikos, or some of those worthless FD and MD mount lenses, but can't really stomach the price just to play around with old MF lenses.
I dislike DPreviews reliance on jpegs. I think for camera reviews DXOmark is the best, with dpreview as an ancillary site. DXO measures the raw capabilities, with no lens in between, and normalizes it for print size, so it's directly comparable. I like slrgear.com for lens reviews with their great 3d blur charts and the fact they review lenses on both crop and full frame, and I like photozone.de to double down on lens reviews to be sure one site didn't just get a bad copy.
Panasonic GF1: shit high ISOs in comparison to the true APS-c cameras like x100, x1, and nex. Also no optical viewfinder.
Olympus EPs Same, shit high ISOs. Better than a P&S but way behind a dslr, also no optical viewfinder, and the add on electronic ones are unwieldy, make the camera just as expensive as the x100, and make it very awkward to put in a bag or pocket.
Nex comes close, it has the image quality, but the controls are too point and shoot-y, and again, no optical viewfinder. Also no good wide angle low light lenses. Even with being able to mount any lens, there is no good 35mm f/2 or faster equivalent. Go look for one, the only option is a 3k Leica lens.
If you really like 35mm, an optical viewfinder, and manual controls, nothing comes close. If any of those aspects you're ambivalent about, it won't make sense till the price comes down a lot on the used market a year or two from now.
This is the digital equivalent of the Hexar RF, a camera that still holds a cult following for being small, good, 35mm really nice lens, good autofocus, and an optical viewfinder. This design and spec sheet has already stood the test of time, this is just the digital version. The camera is going to do very, very well. Amazon has already pulled preordering 3x because they get too many and Fuji HQ has them pull it because they are unsure they can deliver that many for the first shipment.
Yeah I'm not here to argue that pana/oly's are better, but certainly more flexible at a lower cost for someone who wants a compact dSLR. Also, you can get a EP1+17mm 2.8+EVF for $500 or less new, which is a pretty huge price difference.
Like I said, the X100 looks awesome, and certainly has some very attractive features, but I couldn't see myself getting one, unless I had a lot of excess cash. If I really wanted a compact dSLR, I would go the 43 route because of the flexibility of different lenses, and the price.
Now, i've been waiting for a camera like this for a long time, decent sized sensor, high quality fixed prime lens, all in a compact. I hope we see some copycats to this, I would love to see some lower cost compacts with fixed primes and decent sensors, for this sort of compact camera, for me, I wouldn't require it to match the image quality of a 5D, I think thats a bit excessive, again; i'm not planing on sticking to a fixed 35mm focal length for all of my shooting, so this would be compared to a compact P&S camera more than a full on SLR. I think a lot of people will likely feel the same way, I'm not here to piss in your cheerios, I'm sure it would be an excellent camera to have for someone who shoots mostly at 35mm anyway.
It would be great to see someone come out with a 2x crop sensor, fixed 35mm 2.8, good ISO 1600 performance, decent 3200, in a closer-to-P&S type size, with a low price like $4-600, to challenge the S95 type market. Unfortunately the fancy pants photographer looking for a fixed lens on a P&S camera market is probably too small to put much hope into it.
You shoot mostly with a 35mm/2, or was it the 35/1.4?
Yeah I'm not here to argue that pana/oly's are better, but certainly more flexible at a lower cost for someone who wants a compact dSLR. Also, you can get a EP1+17mm 2.8+EVF for $500 or less new, which is a pretty huge price difference.
Like I said, the X100 looks awesome, and certainly has some very attractive features, but I couldn't see myself getting one, unless I had a lot of excess cash. If I really wanted a compact dSLR, I would go the 43 route because of the flexibility of different lenses, and the price.
Now, i've been waiting for a camera like this for a long time, decent sized sensor, high quality fixed prime lens, all in a compact. I hope we see some copycats to this, I would love to see some lower cost compacts with fixed primes and decent sensors, for this sort of compact camera, for me, I wouldn't require it to match the image quality of a 5D, I think thats a bit excessive, again; i'm not planing on sticking to a fixed 35mm focal length for all of my shooting, so this would be compared to a compact P&S camera more than a full on SLR. I think a lot of people will likely feel the same way, I'm not here to piss in your cheerios, I'm sure it would be an excellent camera to have for someone who shoots mostly at 35mm anyway.
You shoot mostly with a 35mm/2, or was it the 35/1.4?
The 1.4. For me to compare a 450 gram camera that can fit in your jacket pocket to a still-1,000 dollar 5 year old body with a 1,200 dollar lens and find the X100 coming up either even or ahead in all areas (other than depth of field. It has the light gathering advantage with ISO 6400 and no mirror slap, but can't go from f/2 down to f/1.4) is very impressive.
I was more comparing the ep1 with the 20mm 1.7 and EVF which is the fair comparison, as 2.8 is a stop slower on a camera with an already lagging behind sensor.
I've just tried every way I can think of to get a smaller every day camera, but I'm not willing to sacrifice image quality from the 5D because it feels too toylike when the images are so inferior, and then I don't try to do any serious work with it. I've borrowed an s90, a g11, a gf1, an ep1, a small old film slr, and handled a Nex, and none of them do it for me. Nex comes closest, it has actual dynamic range, whereas the m4/3 sensors might be as sharp or noise free as some cheaper dslrs, but they have horrible dynamic range if you're interested in doing post-work. If there was a 35mm equiv f/2 Nex lens I'd already have it, but they are sticking with f/2.8 lenses, and they aren't even small to make up for it. (for instance the panasonic 20mm 1.7 is probably half the size and weight of the NEX 16mm 2.8)
There are rumors that if the X100 does well, they will come out with a 50mm version, and maybe even a changeable mount version in the future. that's what Konica did with the Hexar. They made the fixed 35mm version, it sold like hotcakes, and then they made the RF version that can take different lenses.
Between the m4/3, the Nex, the X1 and now the X100, I see a lot of the makers that can't compete with Nikon and Canon on dslrs, diversifying into niche cameras. some won't be interesting at all, and others will scratch your particular itch in a way no dslr could.
There are rumors that if the X100 does well, they will come out with a 50mm version, and maybe even a changeable mount version in the future. that's what Konica did with the Hexar. They made the fixed 35mm version, it sold like hotcakes, and then they made the RF version that can take different lenses.
This I would like to see, and frankly I'm pretty surprised they didn't just come out with an SLR right away. However, I guess its a good move to do something a bit different, instead of getting lost in the m43 crowd.
Checked Ebay and can't say i'm a fan of it tbh, but the prices are better.
Mastering eBay is essential to anyone buying photo gear. You can almost always buy a used lens for a good price, use it for a year or two, and then resell it for more than what you've paid for it(or break even at the worst) to upgrade to some other lens later, if you have the patience to do it.
After a little more searching around i can get the camera body, plus the 4 lenses brand new for around £1300 ($2100).
Don't know weather to go this route or just get the 28mm and 50mm to start.
That seems like a very steep price to pay to start, I think I would say go for the 28mm and 50mm, and decide if you really need anything more, likely those lenses will keep you pretty content for a while.
This I would like to see, and frankly I'm pretty surprised they didn't just come out with an SLR right away. However, I guess its a good move to do something a bit different, instead of getting lost in the m43 crowd.
Arguably that's how they made this deliver such great quality in such a small size.
The microlenses are offset to match the rays of this particular lens. Basically no vignetting. Not possible to offset for every lens you could put on.
The backmost glass element is physically larger than a lens opening could be, which allows the rays to be much more perpendicular to the sensor, again making less vignetting.
It's hard to make a lens with autofocus, fast aperture AND cover a large sensor while keeping a small size. The Panasonic 20mm 1.7 is the only lens I can think of that is both faster in aperture, and similar size with autofocus, but it only has to cover a 4/3 sensor, and would probably not cover an aps-c. The lens on the x100 doesn't protrude out as far as the 20mm 1.7, the nex with 16mm, or the ep1 with 17mm. The only camera and lens with bigger than P&S sensor that is shorter from lens tip to back is the Leica X1, and that's because it's lens collapses inside the body, but then extends. (and it costs 2,000 dollars with no viewfinder, a full stop slower lens, and slow-ass AF)
From a marketing point of view, an interchangeable lens is a big R&D expensive. Much better to test the waters with a fixed lens design, establish a name, a design, work out the kinks and see what kind of units you can move, and THEN invest in a new lens line plus lens mount.
Yeah, it's expensive for me, that's too obvious that it does not need to be said.
I could buy the most expensive professional dslr, but what's the point buying something i will use randomly and just for some photos? (i'm not a professional photographer!) that's a wasted money! it's like to buy the lastest dual xeon workstation with 10 cores, "just because i have the money and i don't know what to do with it".
Another thing as example, is that too many people talk about megapixels are not important, but at the end, i'm sure they would like to have photos without too much noise, and bigger resolutions. When i see photos from real photographers, with professional equipment, i really would like to have the cameras to shoot those huge photos of 6732x8984pixels. For me, the standard 12 megapixels are not enough, and i also want fast shooting for action photos. But that's only my preference.
But being realistic:
This past x'mas we had the nikon D5000 with the standard lense of 18-55mm at 499 euro in mediamarkt, it was a good deal. The optic they ship is not quite good, so if we want quality.. we are forced to pay like 150-400euros in good lenses. At the end, if you like photography in amateur levels, you can easily end wasting more than 1000 euros buying an old and cheap body with good/standard lenses.
I still use a compact sony cybershot p100 :S, but i rather prefer a cheap reflex+good lenses for 1000 euros. Again, i say it's my preference. If i don't want to pay for an expensive body like the canon eos 7d (1200 euro), i still can do great photos paying a bit more for a better optic, that at the end, it's the most important thing with cameras.
Yeah, it's expensive for me, that's too obvious that it does not need to be said.
I could buy the most expensive professional dslr, but what's the point buying something i will use randomly and just for some photos? (i'm not a professional photographer!) that's a wasted money! it's like to buy the lastest dual xeon workstation with 10 cores, "just because i have the money and i don't know what to do with it".
Another thing as example, is that too many people talk about megapixels are not important, but at the end, i'm sure they would like to have photos without too much noise, and bigger resolutions. When i see photos from real photographers, with professional equipment, i really would like to have the cameras to shoot those huge photos of 6732x8984pixels. For me, the standard 12 megapixels are not enough, and i also want fast shooting for action photos. But that's only my preference.
This is a 90x120cm print from my 5D, a 12.8mp camera. It's plenty sharp and looks great. I'll take a 12 megapixels good body like the 5D over an 18mp 7d or whatever the newest higher megapixel crop body will be. The 12 mp of the x100 (and 5D) have much less noise and more dynamic range than the higher megapixel cheaper dslrs.
You are contradicting yourself, saying you don't need to spend money on a professional DSLR, you just use it occasionally, but then saying you need many megapixels. Do you ever print? If not, you don't even need 2 megapixels, sharing on the web only needs tiny jpegs that any camera can make. If you do print, a good 8-12 mp camera will deliver all the quality you need at sizes an amateur can afford to print. What do you do that 12 mp is not enough? (other than zoom-in in photoshop and tut-tut to yourself that there isn't enough detail)
Plus, some of us, while still being amateurs, shoot a lot, and get a great deal of enjoyment out of it. I am not a professional chef, but I have a very expensive table top mixer, because I cook every day and it makes my life easier, lasts a long time, and brings me enjoyment. Photography is a great creative outlet for people, and even if it's a hobby, if you decide it's a large part of your life, a heavier expenditure can be justified. It's not wasted money to pay for high quality tools for a hobby you do a lot.
yeah come on guys we don't buy a 50 inch hdtv and watch it 3 inches away. It's all about viewing distance, I've had billboards printed out from 10mpx files and they look just fine
Same here 12 mpx seems enough for me. I still have not printed any of the photos from my 5d and i would second Ben about his feeling about the 5d vs any crop body with 20 mpx
Also what hobby is not expensive if you dive in it? My skiing gear still costs more than the stuff in my photography bag
Also, what part of a camera with a fixed 35mm/2.0 lens that does good quality up to ISO 6400, mean it isn't good for action shots? =P
Well technically it could have too-slow-for-sports Autofocus, but so far it seems snappy. One cool mode it can do, is first, because it's contrast AF, you can move the AF square to anywhere on the screen (not just 9 points, 30 points, whatever), and it will project it on the optical viewfinder (a first), you can also change it's size. And second, it can be put in "hunt" mode, where it tries to bring the moving thing, no matter where it is in the frame, into focus. Kind of like a motion detector. If you are shooting from the hip on the street, and don't have time to bring it to your eye, and don't want to leave it in a hyperfocal distance, you can turn on this mode, and it will try to actively keep the most moving thing in focus.
Same here 12 mpx seems enough for me. I still have not printed any of the photos from my 5d and i would second Ben about his feeling about the 5d vs any crop body with 20 mpx
Also what hobby is not expensive if you dive in it? My skiing gear still costs more than the stuff in my photography bag
The odds are quite good that I've spent less on photography gear than most polycounters have on alcohol these past few years.
Now if you want to get expensive, start printing large! Each of these canvas prints has been around 180 USD. I think printing should be mandatory, there is nothing like holding an image in your hand, and you can take in all the details in a way even a high resolution monitor won't allow. It's a lot easier for sharing your work also. Larger countries have access to really good print services (mpix in the US) or one can buy a small printer for less than 100 bux that makes borderless 10x15cm/4x6inch prints. If you enjoy photography and have never printed your stuff, try it! Seriously it's addicting and will really let you appreciate your images in a way that's so hard to explain if you haven't held a well made print in your hand.
Plus, people put an importance on printed work. I have found that my friends and family and house-guests spend a lot more time enjoying my physical prints, especially the large canvas, or the ones I frame under glass with a museum light (both can be had for cheap at Ikea).
Even cheap prints from your local pharmacy are great. I think anyone who enjoys taking photos, but doesn't regularly print their work, is robbing themselves of a lot of fun.
That's a good tip Ben, about the printing. I've considered it, but don't think I have photographs that warrant printing yet. Well maybe one or two, but my favorite wasn't even taken with my dslr yet, which makes me wanna hold back a bit on printing it haha.
I'm not saying i need many megapixels, just that i rather prefer more than 12 megapixels if i'm going to pay 1000 euro for a kit of lenses and an entry body. With the canon eos 550 we have very good quality, 18 megapixels and not too much noise at higher iso levels compared to other camera bodies.
Imagine i take a good photo, and i want to sell it, it's always better to have more megapixels, you can crop and see all the details better. In macro photography that's something very useful. But as i said, being realistic, i would not pay a huge amount of money for more megapixels, more shooting speed, and less.. for a few improvements. More megapixels is always very convenient, just that.
And all this about megapixels is quite subjetive. I have friends working as photographers, and they always complain about bodys, shooting speeds, and resolutions.
Yeah, photography it's a very expensive hobby. But being an enthusiast, is common to buy better things, but don't forget camera bodies are always improving.. all years we have newer models with more quality. I prefer to start with a good and cheap body, and good lenses, and if i need more quality, in some more years i upgrade just the body.
Right now, the newer entry level cameras are like the semi-pro cameras of 2 years ago or less.
The tricky thing about resolution, especially on smaller sensors is that it puts so much strain on the lenses, so unless you're packing some serious gear thes results will likely disappoint you. Besides resolving power, diffraction is also an issue as it kicks in about a stop or two earlier.
And dont even me started on the aa filters they user these days
The tricky thing about resolution, especially on smaller sensors is that it puts so much strain on the lenses, so unless you're packing some serious gear thes results will likely disappoint you.
Yeah but this is the dslr thread (and we sometimes mention mirrorless cameras) all of which have large enough sensors to mostly avoid the "too much pixels crammed in" syndrome.
The key is to go for "good" pixels. A 12mp 5D original trumps practically every camera out there if your goal is image quality and a used one can be had for around 1,000 dollars. Cameras that can best it (and only by a very slight amount)
Nikon's full frame sensors (between 2,000-7,000 USD)
5D II (2,500) and only barely, and you need to shoot high ISO or print really large for it to be obvious, at ISO 400 or below and at A3 or smaller it would be imperceptible
Sony A900/850 (2,000-2,500) this is only if you print larger than A3
Leica S2 (30,000 USD for just the body, 6k per lens)
Medium format digital (10k-40k)
Or you could buy a cheap used 40D body and get the crop equivalent. Too many people are buying cheap new low end models for video features or high megapixels, and are losing out on actual image quality. A used 40D is a better buy than a 60D or 550D. A used D90 is a better buy than a d7000.
Anyone considering an actual DSLR should only look at the 40d, 5d original for canon, or the d90, d700 for Nikon, or the A850 for Sony (not sure what their good older crop body is).
Besides resolving power, diffraction is also an issue as it kicks in about a stop or two earlier.
To elaborate on this point, but to state it simply, let's pick a nice lens, the Canon 35mmL. On a crop sensor, it's sharpest aperture is around f/5.6-8. On a full frame camera, it's sharpest is at f/8-11. If your goal is to get a lot of stuff in focus for a landscape image, you are going to have sharper images at the really tiny apertures on a full frame camera than you will on a crop, and a crop sharper than a 4/3.
And dont even me started on the aa filters they user these days
M8 and M9 don't have an AA filter, and most nice cameras you can pay to have it removed, but I agree it's a pain. The x100 looks like it is coming with a weakish AA filter, so I hope this becomes a trend. I'll fix any moire in photoshop and gladly accept that as the tradeoff on 1 image in 100 for extra resolution in every shot I take.
Yeah but this is the dslr thread (and we sometimes mention mirrorless cameras) all of which have large enough sensors to mostly avoid the "too much pixels crammed in" syndrome.
That was the case a few years back, but look at how much they're putting in APS-C cameras today. Anything above 15 is pushing it really.
M8 and M9 don't have an AA filter, and most nice cameras you can pay to have it removed, but I agree it's a pain. The x100 looks like it is coming with a weakish AA filter, so I hope this becomes a trend. I'll fix any moire in photoshop and gladly accept that as the tradeoff on 1 image in 100 for extra resolution in every shot I take.
Yep, moire rarely happens and when it does it's easily fixable. I've only had it happen twice with my M8 in the past 2 years I've used it.
Yeah but this is the dslr thread (and we sometimes mention mirrorless cameras) all of which have large enough sensors to mostly avoid the "too much pixels crammed in" syndrome.
The key is to go for "good" pixels. A 12mp 5D original trumps practically every camera out there if your goal is image quality and a used one can be had for around 1,000 dollars. Cameras that can best it (and only by a very slight amount)
Nikon's full frame sensors (between 2,000-7,000 USD)
5D II (2,500) and only barely, and you need to shoot high ISO or print really large for it to be obvious, at ISO 400 or below and at A3 or smaller it would be imperceptible
Sony A900/850 (2,000-2,500) this is only if you print larger than A3
Leica S2 (30,000 USD for just the body, 6k per lens)
Medium format digital (10k-40k)
Or you could buy a cheap used 40D body and get the crop equivalent. Too many people are buying cheap new low end models for video features or high megapixels, and are losing out on actual image quality. A used 40D is a better buy than a 60D or 550D. A used D90 is a better buy than a d7000.
Anyone considering an actual DSLR should only look at the 40d, 5d original for canon, or the d90, d700 for Nikon, or the A850 for Sony (not sure what their good older crop body is).
.
I think the main difference to your average user between something like the 40D and the 500D would be, the 40D has better build quality, ergonomics, some more pro-end features(af points, shooting speed, etc) and the 500D has video. Looking at that site you mentioned earlier(DxOMark) the sensors on both of these cameras are about even, the 40D rated marginally higher. But really doubtful that anyone but a pro-user would notice the difference in image quality, and that pro user would already have a 5D or something =P. In addition to that, the 7D/550D sensor ranks higher on that site as well than the 40D. Now I haven't actually done any scientific testing or much research into it, but its the site you recommend so I imagine its pretty accurate. =P
To me, I'm looking to upgrade my shity 350D to something cheapish that does video, because using a camera to me is all about fun, I dont care about megapixels, high end image quality comparisons are pretty moot, as even my 350D gets the job done in terms of IQ, and its one of the worst canon dSLRs you can buy, so even a 500D/550D would present a nice upgrade as far as IQ and noise production, even with much more pixels packed in the same sensor. So yeah, its about fun, and if i'm looking at a used 500D or 40D, the price on these cameras is pretty similar and i'de probably go for the one that does video, because i'de like to mess around with video, and the IQ is going to be negligible, as I dont really feel IQ or noise performance is something that is "holding me back" even with my 350D.
I'm also looking forward to ISO 3200/6400. So for me personally, more than analyzing the top end of IQ(which isn't relevant to my uses) or worrying about too many/too little pixels, I'd simply like to be able to do video, and shoot at higher ISO than my current body, even if that means more noise, because I'd prefer more noise to not being able to get a shot at all!
Its actually a little disappointing what canon's newer bodies are doing as far as noise performance, when you look at Pentax for instance, who is coming out with some really nice bodies with low noise... Oh well, pentax's lens lineup still sucks.
I think if you're real concerned about top end IQ, get a full frame, 5D or something, comparing image quality between crop sensors isn't really that fruitful, because none of them are particularly amazing, but virtually all will be good enough for the target market. But I think this is something you've been saying anyway, so its not meant as an "argument" or something.
I think the main difference to your average user between something like the 40D and the 500D would be, the 40D has better build quality, ergonomics, some more pro-end features(af points, shooting speed, etc) and the 500D has video. Looking at that site you mentioned earlier(DxOMark) the sensors on both of these cameras are about even, the 40D rated marginally higher. But really doubtful that anyone but a pro-user would notice the difference in image quality, and that pro user would already have a 5D or something =P. In addition to that, the 7D/550D sensor ranks higher on that site as well than the 40D. Now I haven't actually done any scientific testing or much research into it, but its the site you recommend so I imagine its pretty accurate. =P
The point I was trying to make though, is you can get a used 40D for 200-300 less than a new 550D and much less than a 7D, but you get the build quality, and large viewfinder of the XXD line.
Buy into a higher tier at the same price by getting a used older one. That's what I did, picked up a 3rd hand 5D when everyone was buying 5D IIs. I have some friends that bought 7Ds at the same time at similar cost and I much prefer my choice for image quality and my usage.
Instead of a 550d, get a 40d. Instead of a 7D, get a 5D I, instead of a d7000, get a d90. Same price, but nicer camera.
On video, I'm going to rant. I cannot count the number of friends that ask me for camera advice, then tack on "and with video". Every single one of those friends proceeds to ignore my advice, buy a newer low end body, do video for a month or less, then never touch it again and make only still images.
Photography is an easy access low effort creative outlet as a hobby. Videography requires quite a lot more effort and time. I think most people like the idea of video much more than actually doing it on a regular basis.
Obviously some people will actually use it a bit, but it limits you to only newish equipment, when really great used cameras can be had if you don't require video features. So think two, and even three times about if you will actually use the video features of a camera often and consistently.
The point I was trying to make though, is you can get a used 40D for 200-300 less than a new 550D and much less than a 7D, but you get the build quality, and large viewfinder of the XXD line.
Buy into a higher tier at the same price by getting a used older one. That's what I did, picked up a 3rd hand 5D when everyone was buying 5D IIs. I have some friends that bought 7Ds at the same time at similar cost and I much prefer my choice for image quality and my usage.
Instead of a 550d, get a 40d. Instead of a 7D, get a 5D I, instead of a d7000, get a d90. Same price, but nicer camera.
Absolutely, about the only thing I think you should buy new is the ef 50 1.8, because it sells for the same used as new.
On video, I'm going to rant. I cannot count the number of friends that ask me for camera advice, then tack on "and with video". Every single one of those friends proceeds to ignore my advice, buy a newer low end body, do video for a month or less, then never touch it again and make only still images.
Photography is an easy access low effort creative outlet as a hobby. Videography requires quite a lot more effort and time. I think most people like the idea of video much more than actually doing it on a regular basis.
Obviously some people will actually use it a bit, but it limits you to only newish equipment, when really great used cameras can be had if you don't require video features. So think two, and even three times about if you will actually use the video features of a camera often and consistently.
Yeah, I do not have any delusions of cinematic grandeur, I fully expect it to be of limited real use, and understand that I like the "idea" more than actually having a real purpose for it. However, I still want to try it! The price point for a 40D vrs a 500D is about the same, and like I said I'd sacrifice ergonomics for higher ISO and video capability. While I regret not getting the 20D, and instead the 350D, because the price was so close and the 20D does... everything, better. I think the 500D actually has some better features over the 40D, instead of just being a trimed down sibling.
Again, a 500D provides a great upgrade to a 350D as well, and its not as if i'm unsure about what features I do/do not need in a camera. =P
In addition to that, I am fully capable of selling my gear and regaining most of the cost, a year later if I really do find the video capability worthless, so its completely worth it just to play around with.
If we look at it like this:
350D vs 40D
Liveview
Higher ISO(But not as high as 500D)
Better ergonomics
350D vs 500D
Liveview
Higher ISO
Video
These are the main things i'm looking at, everything else is moot. If I was making money doing photography the 40D would be the obvious choice, as the better ergonomics, and controls would make a more productive setup. However the 500D looks like a more "fun" setup, and I only shoot for fun, so....
Some of the things you need if you want to get quality out of your videos. That stuff ain't cheap
I've been looking at some DYI type stuff for these sort of things, which I like to do(see: the tilt lenses i've hacked together) so again, this is another possibility to have some fun whipping some ghetto gear together.
More important for video/continuous I would say. I wouldn't buy the cheapest card on earth, but I also wouldn't worry about getting the fastest. My camera came with a sandisk extreme II 4gb CF card, which seems to be reasonably fast. No idea how it compares to modern cards. DSRLs have internal memory to buffer X amount of shots, so until you get over X amount, it shouldn't be an issue?
For memory cards, when importing, do a copy only (don't do move). When done, eject the card and use your camera to format the card rather than deleting all.
This is the best way to make sure your card never corrupts images. It can still happen but is less likely than moving images, or using delete all.
I think it is important to have a high speed memory card. Also the d90 is using sd card so it should be cheap enough Sometimes it is important but it still depends what kind of photography you are going after. My camera only takes 3 images per second and it has big buffer so for me it does not make a big difference and i am using a card that is not the fastest but i never had to wait for it so far .. ( I am only shooting portraits and my subjects dont move a lot )
I have a question too .. as I said I dont know too much about the technical side of the cameras and computers and now that we are talking about memory cards ... I have 8 gb sandisk ultra 2 CF card 15 mb/s .
I had about 300 shots today and it took my computer 1 hour to download them... this is .. how to put it down .. not very fast ?
If it is 15 mb per second and one image is 12 mb it should take one second per image right? why was it doing it for hours? Is my camera connection to the computer too slow? Would it be faster if I get card reader?
I can't wait 1 hour for this I want my pictures damn you
yeah copying through the camera is terrible. My CF got corrupted last time (my fault I guess, cheap knockoff CF), and I couldn't even read it anymore through the camera, came up as blank. When I used a reader I managed to save 95% of the pictures I took.
Ok finally back in the market for a camera. My car needed a bunch of repairs last week which hit my wallet pretty hard.
I'm just browsing eBay at what's on offer and I have a few questions.
I'm looking at the 20D body, I can get it for like £120-£150 which is a lot less than I was expecting. Now, is this really going to be a good buy or should I really be going for the 40? I suppose I mean is the 20 genuinely a decent camera or is it just 'good for the price'? I'm not bothered about video, and live view isn't something I can see myself needing enough to pay extra for.
Getting the 20D would also leave me plenty of cash for lenses. I've got about £400 budgeted altogether.
Also, I notice a lot of people on eBay are asking the sellers how many shutter actions have taken place... is there a number I should watch out for? Most of the 20D's have done around 6-8000. What does this mean (obviously how many times the shutter has released, but I mean does this indicate possible need for repair etc).
I suppose I mean is the 20 genuinely a decent camera or is it just 'good for the price'? I'm not bothered about video, and live view isn't something I can see myself needing enough to pay extra for.
Getting the 20D would also leave me plenty of cash for lenses. I've got about £400 budgeted altogether.
The 20D is genuinely a great camera, excellent choice for a beginner, and being able to buy better lenses will have much more of an impact than a better body. Especially if you do not care about the things you mentioned. Its both a good camera, and a good camera for the money.
You can also easily swap it out in a year or three if you feel the need, so there isn't really a big reason to spend more now, when the 20D might be all you really need for a good while. If you feel the need for something better in the not too distant future, you'll be in a good situation because you A. spent so little on your 20D, and B. you'll be able to snag of one of todays more expensive cameras for a good used price, probably spending about the same/less than if you were to buy a "hot new" camera today.
Also, I notice a lot of people on eBay are asking the sellers how many shutter actions have taken place... is there a number I should watch out for? Most of the 20D's have done around 6-8000. What does this mean (obviously how many times the shutter has released, but I mean does this indicate possible need for repair etc).
Thanks for keeping this awesome thread alive!
The 20D is rated for 100,000 shutter actuations I believe, maybe more? 6-8k is excellent.
For your budget I think this is very good idea. The 20 d is a great camera About the shutter count on most cameras needs to be replaced near 100 000 but some are more and some are less. This is an old camera so I am assuming something like 30- 40 000 should be a ok number. Depending on how many images you take it might last you forever. I tend to take about 200 - 300 a week some weeks i dont have what to shoot so it is just an average number. I guess you can't know before you get your camera
Replies
Is it worth bothering getting the cheap 18 -105 zoom lens with it, or should i put this extra cash towards another prime lens?
If you want a really good 50/1.4, I'd go with Sigma's version. Very sharp even wide open and the bokeh is creamy.
I dont know nothing about the 18-105 .... prime lens just feel so much better to me
I had the 50mm 1.8 and it was great lens just fantastic I could not believe it
I think the post one nice picture thread is going to rapidly grow
50/1.8 $100
35/1.8 $190
28/2.8 $150
USED = $440
50/1.4 $350-450 new
$200-300 used
Something to think about =D
28/2.8 $150
50/1.8 $100
85/1.8 $300
^ Would also be a nice kit, I think i'd opt for the 85mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.4, as the 85mm will have better bokeh.
The thing with both the Nikon and Canon 50mm 1.4 lenses is, they're only marginally better than the 1.8 counterparts, but cost 3x more to buy, so its a bad choice for a beginner, or really most people in general, unless you really need what the lens does better. Which would be a little sharper at 2.0, a little better bokeh, and a hair faster.
I have never read a helpful Ken Rockwell review. He is either republishing press releases verbatim, or when he does offer opinion, it's either horribly wrong, or outright crazy.
Anyone who shoots jpeg only with saturation at the maximum has questionable opinions.
An example. His opinion of the new Fuji x100:
The x100 looks like it is going to be the best aps-c sensor put out so far. It has useable ISO 6400, incredible dynamic range even in jpegs (that's what he is mistakingly labeling "low contrast"), and offers the first large sensor experience in a small body WITH an optical viewfinder. Bonus with manual shutter and aperture dials. In fact it's funny he mentions the d700 because a Norwegian reviewer briefly had head to head images from the d7000 vs the X100 before Fuji asked them to remove them, and they were as sharp despite having 6 megapixels less, but showed lower noise and higher dynamic range at those high ISOs (dark tones were still clearly discernible on the x100 but had bled into black on the d7000)
I'm planning to get one, have researched it well, and his thoughts on it are directly counter to reality as someone knowledgeable on gear would be.
To explain this further:
On a 50mm on a full frame for most people is handholdable at 1/50 of a second. On a crop body since it shows an 85ish field of view you need more like 1/80th.
This means a 30mm needs 1/30 on ff or 1/50 on a crop.
Pros:
APS-c sized sensor (think 60d, d7000, Nex, etc)
450 gram small body, it's smaller than any DSLR
metal body, manual dials for aperture and shutter
syncs with flash at 1/1,000 at f/2 (no camera ever before could do this) and 1/4,000 at f/8 (also never done before)
ultra sharp f/2 35mm equivalent lens (with 9 aperture blades, this makes smoother out of focus areas, most cheapo lenses have 5-7, and nice lenses 9-11)
Optical viewfinder that can project a HUD with details OR an actual live feed from the sensor, it's a hybrid OVF/EVF
built in 3 stop ND filter, meaning you can actually shoot at f/2 in broad daylight if you want to isolate your subject with a blurry background.
incredible ISO performance. ISO 6400 looks like ISO 1600 on my 5D original.
Comes with silkypix, not a crappy proprietary editor that no one uses. Silkypix is kind of a poor man's lightroom, but it has all the same functionality and is much nicer than DPP or the other first party editors.
Can do motion panoramas like the Sony Nex cameras. (hold down the button and slowly pan, it stitches them together in camera) bonus built in electronic level.
Quick wake time, .01 second shutter lag, and fast AF
Cons:
Not out yet (grrr) coming mid-to-late March
1,200 USD
Fixed lens. It's 35mm field of view (no changing of lenses)
If you like the 35mm fov (it's my personal favorite) this camera is going to be killer. Tiny, light, no image quality sacrifices. I know for sure it will be used far more than my 5D and I am even pondering selling my 5D at this point. I use 35mm more than any other lens, and I hate how my 5D with a quality 35mm lens is 1.5 kilos and the size of a lunchbox.
I'll be posting a review when I get mine, but I am ultra stoked.
Am i right in thinking that it supposed to operate in a more rangefinder kind of way?
EQ: Unfortunately those prices you listed translate as a 1:1 from $ to £.
I've found amazon to be the cheapest here in the UK. Still nowhere near US prices though.
50mm f1.8 [ame]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-50mm-F1-8D-Nikkor-Lens/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298499267&sr=8-1[/ame]
35mm f1.8 [ame]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-DX-35mm-f1-8G/dp/B001S2PPT0/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1298499295&sr=8-5[/ame]
28mm f2.8 [ame]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-28mm-F2-8D-Nikkor-Lens/dp/B00005LE71/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1298499295&sr=8-9[/ame]
85mm f1.8 [ame]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-85Mm-F1-8D-Nikkor-Lens/dp/B00005LE75/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1298499349&sr=8-2[/ame]
I could get the 50 and 28 or the 50 and 35 and then see where i can go from there.
It looks like this is what stuff is selling for:
28mm 2.8 £75-135
35mm 1.8 £100-150
50mm 1.8 £70-85
85mm 1.8 £175-250
I'm not sure how affordable/unaffordable those prices are, but it looks like most are a decent % less than amazon, and any other retail you'll find i'm sure.
You're buying used from eBay, but there is nothing wrong with that. Just try to find a listing that seems legit, has good detailed photos of the item, and seems like its being sold by someone who knows cameras. On top of this the best thing to remember about ebay is:
The buyer is always right! If you buy something listed as in good working condition, get it, and it is NOT, it does not matter if the seller says "as is" or "no returns" or if they refuse to give you your money back. All you do is file a claim with ebay and tell them the item is "Not as described" and as long as that is true, ebay will force the seller to refund your entire cost + shipping and in some cases even pay for your return shipping. I know this all too well as an eBay seller. 99.9% of the time a buyer has a legitimate case, ebay will side with you, and not the seller.
The 28mm and 50mm will provide more range, and is a very good starting kit(what I started with) however the 35mm is such a nice lens on a crop body, and at 1.8, its hard not to recommend, however 35+50mm is a pretty limited range.
prices are very very expensive.. and for those lenses, cough cough
I'm aiming towards a cheaper nikon d5000 but the new canon eos 600 will make 500 cheaper!
I dont really pay attention to his camera reviews, mostly just the lenses. He has reviews for most of Canon and Nikon's standard primes, so its good to read in that you can compare his thoughts on a particular lens to another, easily.
He does make some retarded claims of course, like saying you should only use medium format film if you want sharp images or whatever, clearly a bit of a nutter.
DPreview has such good camera reviews, why go anywhere else?
That Fuji looks slick, and if I was rich I would probably buy one, but I gotta think a better buy would be a Pana GF*, Oly EP*, or Sony Nex, as they're a lot cheaper, about the same size, come with similar pancake lens options, but also allow you to use... Virtually any 35mm lens ever made.... I've been thinking of a 43 format camera for a while to use with a rather larger pile of OM mount Zuikos, or some of those worthless FD and MD mount lenses, but can't really stomach the price just to play around with old MF lenses.
Sort of, it has an offset viewfinder that is glass but doesn't look through the lens, like a rangefinder, but the name rangefinder comes from the fact it uses two viewfinders and overlays them, like your eyes, to "find the range" of the focus. As you focus the lens that is mechanically rangefinder coupled like on a Leica M camera, the two images move until the subject you desire is overlapping. The X100 does not do this, it shows you an optical view, an AF square you can use for autofocus, and a framing line for framing that is parallax corrected, or a live feed from the sensor via an LCD projected onto a prism, but it's not a rangefinder in the technical sense.
I could also buy 5 pallettes of Q-tips, or 5,000 bags of potato chips for 1,200 dollars. You could also not even put a downpayment on a house for that much. Why compare it to things it is not?
You meant to say that 1,200 is too expensive *for you* and what you want out of a camera. For me, I have the money to spend on it, and it fits my camera needs exactly, to the point I might sell my other gear which is worth more than the cost of the X100. If your only goal is to get the cheapest camera possible that isn't a point and shoot, buy a 1000d and a 50mm 1.8. Some of us have more needs than just cheap, and paying a bit more for that exact tool is worth it. This is the only small camera, with a large sensor, a good lens, and an optical viewfinder. For people who hate composing at arms length, or looking at a tiny electronic EVF, there is no solution other than lugging around a hefty DSLR, and that can get tiring. I don't buy and upgrade cameras like some people do telephones. I've used the same camera for 3 years now, and I have nothing smaller than a lunchbox to take photos with, and I'm not willing to sacrifice image quality to go with a point and shoot, and film is ludicrously expensive in Iceland to develop.
You can buy 5 generic aiptek tablets for the cost of an intuos, but plenty of artists say the quality and build and functionality of the intuos is worth the price premium. The same can be said about car models, power tools, furniture, glasses, speakers, etc etc.
After a little more searching around i can get the camera body, plus the 4 lenses brand new for around £1300 ($2100).
Don't know weather to go this route or just get the 28mm and 50mm to start.
I dislike DPreviews reliance on jpegs. I think for camera reviews DXOmark is the best, with dpreview as an ancillary site. DXO measures the raw capabilities, with no lens in between, and normalizes it for print size, so it's directly comparable. I like slrgear.com for lens reviews with their great 3d blur charts and the fact they review lenses on both crop and full frame, and I like photozone.de to double down on lens reviews to be sure one site didn't just get a bad copy.
Panasonic GF1: shit high ISOs in comparison to the true APS-c cameras like x100, x1, and nex. Also no optical viewfinder.
Olympus EPs Same, shit high ISOs. Better than a P&S but way behind a dslr, also no optical viewfinder, and the add on electronic ones are unwieldy, make the camera just as expensive as the x100, and make it very awkward to put in a bag or pocket.
Nex comes close, it has the image quality, but the controls are too point and shoot-y, and again, no optical viewfinder. Also no good wide angle low light lenses. Even with being able to mount any lens, there is no good 35mm f/2 or faster equivalent. Go look for one, the only option is a 3k Leica lens.
If you really like 35mm, an optical viewfinder, and manual controls, nothing comes close. If any of those aspects you're ambivalent about, it won't make sense till the price comes down a lot on the used market a year or two from now.
This is the digital equivalent of the Hexar RF, a camera that still holds a cult following for being small, good, 35mm really nice lens, good autofocus, and an optical viewfinder. This design and spec sheet has already stood the test of time, this is just the digital version. The camera is going to do very, very well. Amazon has already pulled preordering 3x because they get too many and Fuji HQ has them pull it because they are unsure they can deliver that many for the first shipment.
Like I said, the X100 looks awesome, and certainly has some very attractive features, but I couldn't see myself getting one, unless I had a lot of excess cash.
Now, i've been waiting for a camera like this for a long time, decent sized sensor, high quality fixed prime lens, all in a compact. I hope we see some copycats to this, I would love to see some lower cost compacts with fixed primes and decent sensors, for this sort of compact camera, for me, I wouldn't require it to match the image quality of a 5D, I think thats a bit excessive, again; i'm not planing on sticking to a fixed 35mm focal length for all of my shooting, so this would be compared to a compact P&S camera more than a full on SLR. I think a lot of people will likely feel the same way, I'm not here to piss in your cheerios, I'm sure it would be an excellent camera to have for someone who shoots mostly at 35mm anyway.
It would be great to see someone come out with a 2x crop sensor, fixed 35mm 2.8, good ISO 1600 performance, decent 3200, in a closer-to-P&S type size, with a low price like $4-600, to challenge the S95 type market. Unfortunately the fancy pants photographer looking for a fixed lens on a P&S camera market is probably too small to put much hope into it.
You shoot mostly with a 35mm/2, or was it the 35/1.4?
The 1.4. For me to compare a 450 gram camera that can fit in your jacket pocket to a still-1,000 dollar 5 year old body with a 1,200 dollar lens and find the X100 coming up either even or ahead in all areas (other than depth of field. It has the light gathering advantage with ISO 6400 and no mirror slap, but can't go from f/2 down to f/1.4) is very impressive.
I was more comparing the ep1 with the 20mm 1.7 and EVF which is the fair comparison, as 2.8 is a stop slower on a camera with an already lagging behind sensor.
I've just tried every way I can think of to get a smaller every day camera, but I'm not willing to sacrifice image quality from the 5D because it feels too toylike when the images are so inferior, and then I don't try to do any serious work with it. I've borrowed an s90, a g11, a gf1, an ep1, a small old film slr, and handled a Nex, and none of them do it for me. Nex comes closest, it has actual dynamic range, whereas the m4/3 sensors might be as sharp or noise free as some cheaper dslrs, but they have horrible dynamic range if you're interested in doing post-work. If there was a 35mm equiv f/2 Nex lens I'd already have it, but they are sticking with f/2.8 lenses, and they aren't even small to make up for it. (for instance the panasonic 20mm 1.7 is probably half the size and weight of the NEX 16mm 2.8)
There are rumors that if the X100 does well, they will come out with a 50mm version, and maybe even a changeable mount version in the future. that's what Konica did with the Hexar. They made the fixed 35mm version, it sold like hotcakes, and then they made the RF version that can take different lenses.
Between the m4/3, the Nex, the X1 and now the X100, I see a lot of the makers that can't compete with Nikon and Canon on dslrs, diversifying into niche cameras. some won't be interesting at all, and others will scratch your particular itch in a way no dslr could.
This I would like to see, and frankly I'm pretty surprised they didn't just come out with an SLR right away. However, I guess its a good move to do something a bit different, instead of getting lost in the m43 crowd.
Mastering eBay is essential to anyone buying photo gear. You can almost always buy a used lens for a good price, use it for a year or two, and then resell it for more than what you've paid for it(or break even at the worst) to upgrade to some other lens later, if you have the patience to do it.
That seems like a very steep price to pay to start, I think I would say go for the 28mm and 50mm, and decide if you really need anything more, likely those lenses will keep you pretty content for a while.
Arguably that's how they made this deliver such great quality in such a small size.
The microlenses are offset to match the rays of this particular lens. Basically no vignetting. Not possible to offset for every lens you could put on.
The backmost glass element is physically larger than a lens opening could be, which allows the rays to be much more perpendicular to the sensor, again making less vignetting.
It's hard to make a lens with autofocus, fast aperture AND cover a large sensor while keeping a small size. The Panasonic 20mm 1.7 is the only lens I can think of that is both faster in aperture, and similar size with autofocus, but it only has to cover a 4/3 sensor, and would probably not cover an aps-c. The lens on the x100 doesn't protrude out as far as the 20mm 1.7, the nex with 16mm, or the ep1 with 17mm. The only camera and lens with bigger than P&S sensor that is shorter from lens tip to back is the Leica X1, and that's because it's lens collapses inside the body, but then extends. (and it costs 2,000 dollars with no viewfinder, a full stop slower lens, and slow-ass AF)
From a marketing point of view, an interchangeable lens is a big R&D expensive. Much better to test the waters with a fixed lens design, establish a name, a design, work out the kinks and see what kind of units you can move, and THEN invest in a new lens line plus lens mount.
I could buy the most expensive professional dslr, but what's the point buying something i will use randomly and just for some photos? (i'm not a professional photographer!) that's a wasted money! it's like to buy the lastest dual xeon workstation with 10 cores, "just because i have the money and i don't know what to do with it".
Another thing as example, is that too many people talk about megapixels are not important, but at the end, i'm sure they would like to have photos without too much noise, and bigger resolutions. When i see photos from real photographers, with professional equipment, i really would like to have the cameras to shoot those huge photos of 6732x8984pixels. For me, the standard 12 megapixels are not enough, and i also want fast shooting for action photos. But that's only my preference.
But being realistic:
This past x'mas we had the nikon D5000 with the standard lense of 18-55mm at 499 euro in mediamarkt, it was a good deal. The optic they ship is not quite good, so if we want quality.. we are forced to pay like 150-400euros in good lenses. At the end, if you like photography in amateur levels, you can easily end wasting more than 1000 euros buying an old and cheap body with good/standard lenses.
Just for macros: http://www.pixmania.com/es/es/1640/xx/xx/433/1/criteresn_BA00001678-BV00124161.html
I still use a compact sony cybershot p100 :S, but i rather prefer a cheap reflex+good lenses for 1000 euros. Again, i say it's my preference. If i don't want to pay for an expensive body like the canon eos 7d (1200 euro), i still can do great photos paying a bit more for a better optic, that at the end, it's the most important thing with cameras.
12 megapixels is all we amateurs need.
(original picture here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_chompers/5065163353/sizes/o/in/set-72157625069193615/
This is a 90x120cm print from my 5D, a 12.8mp camera. It's plenty sharp and looks great. I'll take a 12 megapixels good body like the 5D over an 18mp 7d or whatever the newest higher megapixel crop body will be. The 12 mp of the x100 (and 5D) have much less noise and more dynamic range than the higher megapixel cheaper dslrs.
You are contradicting yourself, saying you don't need to spend money on a professional DSLR, you just use it occasionally, but then saying you need many megapixels. Do you ever print? If not, you don't even need 2 megapixels, sharing on the web only needs tiny jpegs that any camera can make. If you do print, a good 8-12 mp camera will deliver all the quality you need at sizes an amateur can afford to print. What do you do that 12 mp is not enough? (other than zoom-in in photoshop and tut-tut to yourself that there isn't enough detail)
Plus, some of us, while still being amateurs, shoot a lot, and get a great deal of enjoyment out of it. I am not a professional chef, but I have a very expensive table top mixer, because I cook every day and it makes my life easier, lasts a long time, and brings me enjoyment. Photography is a great creative outlet for people, and even if it's a hobby, if you decide it's a large part of your life, a heavier expenditure can be justified. It's not wasted money to pay for high quality tools for a hobby you do a lot.
Also what hobby is not expensive if you dive in it? My skiing gear still costs more than the stuff in my photography bag
Well technically it could have too-slow-for-sports Autofocus, but so far it seems snappy. One cool mode it can do, is first, because it's contrast AF, you can move the AF square to anywhere on the screen (not just 9 points, 30 points, whatever), and it will project it on the optical viewfinder (a first), you can also change it's size. And second, it can be put in "hunt" mode, where it tries to bring the moving thing, no matter where it is in the frame, into focus. Kind of like a motion detector. If you are shooting from the hip on the street, and don't have time to bring it to your eye, and don't want to leave it in a hyperfocal distance, you can turn on this mode, and it will try to actively keep the most moving thing in focus.
The odds are quite good that I've spent less on photography gear than most polycounters have on alcohol these past few years.
Now if you want to get expensive, start printing large! Each of these canvas prints has been around 180 USD. I think printing should be mandatory, there is nothing like holding an image in your hand, and you can take in all the details in a way even a high resolution monitor won't allow. It's a lot easier for sharing your work also. Larger countries have access to really good print services (mpix in the US) or one can buy a small printer for less than 100 bux that makes borderless 10x15cm/4x6inch prints. If you enjoy photography and have never printed your stuff, try it! Seriously it's addicting and will really let you appreciate your images in a way that's so hard to explain if you haven't held a well made print in your hand.
Plus, people put an importance on printed work. I have found that my friends and family and house-guests spend a lot more time enjoying my physical prints, especially the large canvas, or the ones I frame under glass with a museum light (both can be had for cheap at Ikea).
Even cheap prints from your local pharmacy are great. I think anyone who enjoys taking photos, but doesn't regularly print their work, is robbing themselves of a lot of fun.
Imagine i take a good photo, and i want to sell it, it's always better to have more megapixels, you can crop and see all the details better. In macro photography that's something very useful. But as i said, being realistic, i would not pay a huge amount of money for more megapixels, more shooting speed, and less.. for a few improvements. More megapixels is always very convenient, just that.
And all this about megapixels is quite subjetive. I have friends working as photographers, and they always complain about bodys, shooting speeds, and resolutions.
Yeah, photography it's a very expensive hobby. But being an enthusiast, is common to buy better things, but don't forget camera bodies are always improving.. all years we have newer models with more quality. I prefer to start with a good and cheap body, and good lenses, and if i need more quality, in some more years i upgrade just the body.
Right now, the newer entry level cameras are like the semi-pro cameras of 2 years ago or less.
And dont even me started on the aa filters they user these days
Yeah but this is the dslr thread (and we sometimes mention mirrorless cameras) all of which have large enough sensors to mostly avoid the "too much pixels crammed in" syndrome.
The key is to go for "good" pixels. A 12mp 5D original trumps practically every camera out there if your goal is image quality and a used one can be had for around 1,000 dollars. Cameras that can best it (and only by a very slight amount)
Nikon's full frame sensors (between 2,000-7,000 USD)
5D II (2,500) and only barely, and you need to shoot high ISO or print really large for it to be obvious, at ISO 400 or below and at A3 or smaller it would be imperceptible
Sony A900/850 (2,000-2,500) this is only if you print larger than A3
Leica S2 (30,000 USD for just the body, 6k per lens)
Medium format digital (10k-40k)
Or you could buy a cheap used 40D body and get the crop equivalent. Too many people are buying cheap new low end models for video features or high megapixels, and are losing out on actual image quality. A used 40D is a better buy than a 60D or 550D. A used D90 is a better buy than a d7000.
Anyone considering an actual DSLR should only look at the 40d, 5d original for canon, or the d90, d700 for Nikon, or the A850 for Sony (not sure what their good older crop body is).
To elaborate on this point, but to state it simply, let's pick a nice lens, the Canon 35mmL. On a crop sensor, it's sharpest aperture is around f/5.6-8. On a full frame camera, it's sharpest is at f/8-11. If your goal is to get a lot of stuff in focus for a landscape image, you are going to have sharper images at the really tiny apertures on a full frame camera than you will on a crop, and a crop sharper than a 4/3.
M8 and M9 don't have an AA filter, and most nice cameras you can pay to have it removed, but I agree it's a pain. The x100 looks like it is coming with a weakish AA filter, so I hope this becomes a trend. I'll fix any moire in photoshop and gladly accept that as the tradeoff on 1 image in 100 for extra resolution in every shot I take.
That was the case a few years back, but look at how much they're putting in APS-C cameras today. Anything above 15 is pushing it really.
Yep, moire rarely happens and when it does it's easily fixable. I've only had it happen twice with my M8 in the past 2 years I've used it.
I think the main difference to your average user between something like the 40D and the 500D would be, the 40D has better build quality, ergonomics, some more pro-end features(af points, shooting speed, etc) and the 500D has video. Looking at that site you mentioned earlier(DxOMark) the sensors on both of these cameras are about even, the 40D rated marginally higher. But really doubtful that anyone but a pro-user would notice the difference in image quality, and that pro user would already have a 5D or something =P. In addition to that, the 7D/550D sensor ranks higher on that site as well than the 40D. Now I haven't actually done any scientific testing or much research into it, but its the site you recommend so I imagine its pretty accurate. =P
To me, I'm looking to upgrade my shity 350D to something cheapish that does video, because using a camera to me is all about fun, I dont care about megapixels, high end image quality comparisons are pretty moot, as even my 350D gets the job done in terms of IQ, and its one of the worst canon dSLRs you can buy, so even a 500D/550D would present a nice upgrade as far as IQ and noise production, even with much more pixels packed in the same sensor. So yeah, its about fun, and if i'm looking at a used 500D or 40D, the price on these cameras is pretty similar and i'de probably go for the one that does video, because i'de like to mess around with video, and the IQ is going to be negligible, as I dont really feel IQ or noise performance is something that is "holding me back" even with my 350D.
I'm also looking forward to ISO 3200/6400. So for me personally, more than analyzing the top end of IQ(which isn't relevant to my uses) or worrying about too many/too little pixels, I'd simply like to be able to do video, and shoot at higher ISO than my current body, even if that means more noise, because I'd prefer more noise to not being able to get a shot at all!
Its actually a little disappointing what canon's newer bodies are doing as far as noise performance, when you look at Pentax for instance, who is coming out with some really nice bodies with low noise... Oh well, pentax's lens lineup still sucks.
I think if you're real concerned about top end IQ, get a full frame, 5D or something, comparing image quality between crop sensors isn't really that fruitful, because none of them are particularly amazing, but virtually all will be good enough for the target market. But I think this is something you've been saying anyway, so its not meant as an "argument" or something.
The point I was trying to make though, is you can get a used 40D for 200-300 less than a new 550D and much less than a 7D, but you get the build quality, and large viewfinder of the XXD line.
Buy into a higher tier at the same price by getting a used older one. That's what I did, picked up a 3rd hand 5D when everyone was buying 5D IIs. I have some friends that bought 7Ds at the same time at similar cost and I much prefer my choice for image quality and my usage.
Instead of a 550d, get a 40d. Instead of a 7D, get a 5D I, instead of a d7000, get a d90. Same price, but nicer camera.
Photography is an easy access low effort creative outlet as a hobby. Videography requires quite a lot more effort and time. I think most people like the idea of video much more than actually doing it on a regular basis.
Obviously some people will actually use it a bit, but it limits you to only newish equipment, when really great used cameras can be had if you don't require video features. So think two, and even three times about if you will actually use the video features of a camera often and consistently.
Some of the things you need if you want to get quality out of your videos. That stuff ain't cheap
Absolutely, about the only thing I think you should buy new is the ef 50 1.8, because it sells for the same used as new.
Yeah, I do not have any delusions of cinematic grandeur, I fully expect it to be of limited real use, and understand that I like the "idea" more than actually having a real purpose for it. However, I still want to try it! The price point for a 40D vrs a 500D is about the same, and like I said I'd sacrifice ergonomics for higher ISO and video capability. While I regret not getting the 20D, and instead the 350D, because the price was so close and the 20D does... everything, better. I think the 500D actually has some better features over the 40D, instead of just being a trimed down sibling.
Again, a 500D provides a great upgrade to a 350D as well, and its not as if i'm unsure about what features I do/do not need in a camera. =P
In addition to that, I am fully capable of selling my gear and regaining most of the cost, a year later if I really do find the video capability worthless, so its completely worth it just to play around with.
If we look at it like this:
350D vs 40D
Liveview
Higher ISO(But not as high as 500D)
Better ergonomics
350D vs 500D
Liveview
Higher ISO
Video
These are the main things i'm looking at, everything else is moot. If I was making money doing photography the 40D would be the obvious choice, as the better ergonomics, and controls would make a more productive setup. However the 500D looks like a more "fun" setup, and I only shoot for fun, so....
I've been looking at some DYI type stuff for these sort of things, which I like to do(see: the tilt lenses i've hacked together) so again, this is another possibility to have some fun whipping some ghetto gear together.
One last question if i may, how important is memory card speed? Is it only a factor when using video/continuous shooting?
This is the best way to make sure your card never corrupts images. It can still happen but is less likely than moving images, or using delete all.
I had about 300 shots today and it took my computer 1 hour to download them... this is .. how to put it down .. not very fast ?
If it is 15 mb per second and one image is 12 mb it should take one second per image right? why was it doing it for hours? Is my camera connection to the computer too slow? Would it be faster if I get card reader?
I can't wait 1 hour for this
I'm just browsing eBay at what's on offer and I have a few questions.
I'm looking at the 20D body, I can get it for like £120-£150 which is a lot less than I was expecting. Now, is this really going to be a good buy or should I really be going for the 40? I suppose I mean is the 20 genuinely a decent camera or is it just 'good for the price'? I'm not bothered about video, and live view isn't something I can see myself needing enough to pay extra for.
Getting the 20D would also leave me plenty of cash for lenses. I've got about £400 budgeted altogether.
Also, I notice a lot of people on eBay are asking the sellers how many shutter actions have taken place... is there a number I should watch out for? Most of the 20D's have done around 6-8000. What does this mean (obviously how many times the shutter has released, but I mean does this indicate possible need for repair etc).
Thanks for keeping this awesome thread alive!
The 20D is genuinely a great camera, excellent choice for a beginner, and being able to buy better lenses will have much more of an impact than a better body. Especially if you do not care about the things you mentioned. Its both a good camera, and a good camera for the money.
You can also easily swap it out in a year or three if you feel the need, so there isn't really a big reason to spend more now, when the 20D might be all you really need for a good while. If you feel the need for something better in the not too distant future, you'll be in a good situation because you A. spent so little on your 20D, and B. you'll be able to snag of one of todays more expensive cameras for a good used price, probably spending about the same/less than if you were to buy a "hot new" camera today.
The 20D is rated for 100,000 shutter actuations I believe, maybe more? 6-8k is excellent.