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.
Yep, 20D is nice, but the 40D is an upgrade. If you were only going to get a single lens and body and shoot for a while, if you can swing it, I'd get the 40d, but the 20d isn't way behind.
What I think I'll do is eye eBay for a couple of weeks and just see how prices are for both the 20 and the 40, if an affordable 40d comes up that leaves me adequate lens money then I'll go for it. Otherwise, I'll happily grab a 20D.
Still haven't been able to get to a shop yet to try the D90 out. Although on my searching i've now spotted the Sony A55 and think it would make a good alternative.
Anyone have any view's on the A55?
The thing that puts me off the Sony is it looks cheaply built compared to the D90. The other thing is the whole "buying into the system" motto. I know there's nowhere as many lenses for the Sony, compared to Canon and Nikon. Although Sony's equivalent lenses do look slightly cheaper money wise.
But the Sony seems to offer more features over the D90 for around the same price, but the Nikon seems to have better ISO and dynamic range, which is what i see more important for low light and HDR stuff.
While I don't have any experience with Sony cameras, I have a few friends that has been shooting with them some time ago. One thing to remember thought is when buying a none Nikon/Canon body, you might find your self limited later on when you have a good library of lenses and Sony no longer offers you an upgrade. So watch out if you later down the road have to switch to Canon or Nikon.
I wouldn't get too caught up with fancy features, notice how as you go up in the camera line you actually get less features In the end IQ and handling is all that matters
Still haven't been able to get to a shop yet to try the D90 out. Although on my searching i've now spotted the Sony A55 and think it would make a good alternative.
Anyone have any view's on the A55?
The thing that puts me off the Sony is it looks cheaply built compared to the D90. The other thing is the whole "buying into the system" motto. I know there's nowhere as many lenses for the Sony, compared to Canon and Nikon. Although Sony's equivalent lenses do look slightly cheaper money wise.
But the Sony seems to offer more features over the D90 for around the same price, but the Nikon seems to have better ISO and dynamic range, which is what i see more important for low light and HDR stuff.
One super huge, amazinly great thing about sony is this:
All those Minolta Maxxum AF lenses? Well maybe you've never even heard of them, but there is a good selection of old used Maxxum lenses, that can be had on the CHEAP people do not realize Sony bought Minolta, and Sony alpha dSLRs fully support these old Minolta lenses. So when looking at Sony bodies, consider that. Most sony lenses are rebranded Minolta designs.
For instance, you can buy a
Maxxum 50mm 1.4 used for $200-250
Maxxum 50mm 1.8 $40-70
Maxxum 28mm 2.8 $75-100
Maxxum 24mm 2.8 $160-185
And a variety of decent zooms, in the $50-200 range like:
28-85mm
100-200mm
70-210mm F4 "beercan"
So when thinking sony, think minolta! Along with a variety of 3rd party lenses listed for Minolta AF mount. Sony also has in-body image stabilization, which is nice. Minolta may not be Canon or Nikon, but they make quality lenses and are a step above 3rd party sigma/tamron/tokina/etc.
One super huge, amazinly great thing about sony is this:
All those Minolta Maxxum AF lenses? Well maybe you've never even heard of them, but there is a good selection of old used Maxxum lenses, that can be had on the CHEAP people do not realize Sony bought Minolta, and Sony alpha dSLRs fully support these old Minolta lenses. So when looking at Sony bodies, consider that. Most sony lenses are rebranded Minolta designs.
For instance, you can buy a
Maxxum 50mm 1.4 used for $200-250
Maxxum 50mm 1.8 $40-70
Maxxum 28mm 2.8 $75-100
Maxxum 24mm 2.8 $160-185
And a variety of decent zooms, in the $50-200 range like:
28-85mm
100-200mm
70-210mm F4 "beercan"
So when thinking sony, think minolta! Along with a variety of 3rd party lenses listed for Minolta AF mount. Sony also has in-body image stabilization, which is nice. Minolta may not be Canon or Nikon, but they make quality lenses and are a step above 3rd party sigma/tamron/tokina/etc.
So do we provide picture-taking advice in this thread as well? :P. I've been making quite a few photo's last weekend, because I went on a small trip with a couple of friends.
Beginner questions:
-Do you usually set your ISO yourself (to like 100-200 during the day and 3600 in a dimly lit room) or do you leave it to auto?
-Do you take pictures primarily in M mode or do you also use the Av and Tv modes? (I know what they do, but was just wondering).
-How much editing do you usually do on the pc? (and do you adjust one picture, store the adjustments as an action and apply them to all similar pictures? or what are your tricks here?)
All of this advice presupposes you have read and understood the book "understanding exposure" (a must read for anyone even remotely serious about photography)
My current camera doesn't have auto ISO, so I normally set it to where I think the general brightness should be, then see if I can keep the aperture and shutter speeds I want, and adjust ISO if needed.
I mainly take images in M mode with spot metering mode. Because I know what my subject is going to be and where I want to place it in the exposure zone wise. (this is not going to make sense if you haven't read the book)
I normally load all my raw files into lightroom, then go through all of them, starring the "keepers" as 1, or 2 if I think they are super good. Then I make lightroom hide all but those with 1 star, and I go in and edit them with rough settings, copying across similar photos when they can be reused. Then I go in and try to star only the really good ones with 2 stars, do final edits, then upload to flickr or facebook. I do further editing for the ones that go on my portfolio or will be printed, mostly in photoshop.
I read the book "understanding exposure" few months back after Ben recommended it and now i think I am going to read it second time Fantastic read.
I dont use auto iso but if I am to shoot something fast and I dont have time to adjust everything for the next shot I use A mode but only if I know that my speed will not drop down bellow 1/60.
Also I do the same with lightroom and send the best images to PS where I play with the colors. If I think an image is really good and I have an idea where I want to go with it I might work on it for a full day Some of my images only take 20-30 min.
I do however plan to give auto-ISO a whirl on my new X100. You set the maximum ISO you want allowed, and the minimum shutter speed it can go down to before bumping up again.
I shoot 98% in AV, using exposure compensation for more tricky situations, using M rarely only when I want some really specific settings, and same with shutter priority.
Outdoors:
ISO 100-200 sunny day
ISO 200-400 in the shade/shady/overcast day
ISO 400-800 later in the day/sunset
ISO 800-1600 night stuff
Indoors:
ISO 400 for well lit, good natural light
ISO 400-800 for meh lighting
ISO 1600 for poor lighting
ISO 1600 -1 or -2 EV for really bad lighting(no iso 3200 on my 350D =((( )
ISO 100-200 for anything where I have a tripod.
Of course this is all dependent on lens too, and these higher iso shots will be taken at f1.4/1.8
One super huge, amazinly great thing about sony is this:
All those Minolta Maxxum AF lenses? Well maybe you've never even heard of them, but there is a good selection of old used Maxxum lenses, that can be had on the CHEAP people do not realize Sony bought Minolta, and Sony alpha dSLRs fully support these old Minolta lenses. So when looking at Sony bodies, consider that. Most sony lenses are rebranded Minolta designs.
For instance, you can buy a
Maxxum 50mm 1.4 used for $200-250
Maxxum 50mm 1.8 $40-70
Maxxum 28mm 2.8 $75-100
Maxxum 24mm 2.8 $160-185
And a variety of decent zooms, in the $50-200 range like:
28-85mm
100-200mm
70-210mm F4 "beercan"
So when thinking sony, think minolta! Along with a variety of 3rd party lenses listed for Minolta AF mount. Sony also has in-body image stabilization, which is nice. Minolta may not be Canon or Nikon, but they make quality lenses and are a step above 3rd party sigma/tamron/tokina/etc.
I did read that Sony had bought them, but didn't read enough into it. I didn't know the about the mounts being compatible.
Seems Sony have a good choice for lenses then, not what i originally expected.
Its still not as good as Nikon or Canon(which IMO has the best lens lineup), but its likely suitable. Some of those less common Maxxum lenses are hard to find and will demand a premium, but the most common, most useful like the 50mm 1.4 and the 28/24mm 2.8 can be easily found for good prices. Its a shame, the 35mm 2.0 and 1.4 seem much harder to find.
Depending on exactly the lenses you want to get it may/may not be a good idea. But it certainly isn't a terrible idea in general terms.
I do not have much to add to what already been said.
Just that I shoot everything on M.
I hate it when my camera starts doing things I do not like. Specialy with following bugs, insects, bird ect, you do not want your shutterspeed to suddenly drop, or get weird exposures by having it on auto. Specialy keep it on M if you have a lighting value in your img you want to capture, you might need a heavier setting then your camera will give you.
If you do it alot on M, you develope a sense for your settings anyway.
I'm more of a try it out person, i wont meter, i just look at what the situation is and set my settings accordingly. Give it a shot, see how close my estimate was, and give it another click to finetune the setting.
I have to anyway, when you walk around it is all about estimating.
Some preferences of mine are,
-Keeping the ISO as low as possible, only if my other settings start to drop below prefered i start to bump it up. So start at a 100, see if you can get a clean result, and if needed start adding a bit.
-My shutter mostly not lower 125 when shooting from the hand.
-My F is mostly a variation of things, i like to keep this one low, and add my powers to the shutter speed so i dont have a bird blurring up the picture.
Another setting I like to use is, RAW + small quality jpg.
When skipping through photos in a folder, raw files can be a bit of a pain.
So i look at the jpg's to see which photo i like to keep or edit, write down some numbers and then go over to the raws.
edit//
If you do keep it on auto, you should look up which points your camera uses to calculate its settings with. Long time ago that i looked into this, but it can use multiple metering points for a total picture to balance it out, or you can grab the spotmetering point in the center, so when you point it at a bird in the sky, it does not try to compensate for the blue around the bird.
Rens: Agreed, that's why I always recommend to my friends that they shoot film first. A 1 film 1 lens combo will pretty much make you a master with exposure, after that it's just a matter of thinking in stops. These days I don't even need a meter (and my M certainly doesn't have one either XD)
That said, having a fullframe camera has spoiled me a little :P ISO1600 is the new ISO200 for me, you can barely tell the difference between the too
Its still not as good as Nikon or Canon(which IMO has the best lens lineup), but its likely suitable. Some of those less common Maxxum lenses are hard to find and will demand a premium, but the most common, most useful like the 50mm 1.4 and the 28/24mm 2.8 can be easily found for good prices. Its a shame, the 35mm 2.0 and 1.4 seem much harder to find.
Depending on exactly the lenses you want to get it may/may not be a good idea. But it certainly isn't a terrible idea in general terms.
Quite a nice selection of prime lenses on ebay, along with some a700's. My only prob with getting the body used is there'll be no warranty.
I bought myself a Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 DL Macro Zoom for cheap on ebay, I guess there is an outside chance it won't work of my 20d but if so I can send it back. Chances seem pretty slim that it won't work but I guess these lenses had to be re-chipped by sigma to work with newer dslr's. Pretty sure that's why I got the deal.
I didn't really even care about getting a zoom right away but I figured it would be good to play around with. I'm going to buy EF 50mm 1.8 this week no matter what. People keep answering my wanted ad on craigslist and then not following through with selling me the damn lens.
Thanks for the shooting tips I'm shooting in manual at all time right now, I figured that would be the best learning experience. I will have to try Av.
Shaffer, I was about to say just go to B&H and buy the 50mmm 1.8 new, but the price has jumped up for $95 when I bought it to $120. Sons of bitches. This sells for $80-120 used, so maybe $120 new isnt a bad price, its such a cheap(price and build quality) lens that I would rather just buy it new myself.
However, here is a little secret of mine, for anyone looking for the most common primes(Canon/Nikon 50mm 18/28mm 2.8 esp);
Look under the "film cameras" section on ebay. Usually you can find an older AF film body with the lens, and for a 50mm 1.8 + camera it might sell for $60-80. If you're like me you then resell the camera body for $30 or something, but not everyone has the time to do that. Even at 60-80 you're still getting a deal.
So, my sister in law wanted a nikon dSLR. I found her a D80 kit with the 18-55 and 55-200mm kit lenses, which will likely be sold to fund some other lens. I was reading the review on dpreview and found it curious that they were comparing the D80 to the 400D. When I look at the features, ergonomics and controls of the D80, I compare it more to the 40D than the 400D, but I guess at the time of release it was priced similar to the 400D.
I got the kit for $514 shipped. I also picked up a Nikon N4004 AF film camera with the 50mm 1.8 AF lens for $75 shipped. This lens tends to sell for $90-120 used and 120-150 new so i'm pretty happy. I'll sell the body for 20-30 and have a 50mm 1.8 for a net of about $55, yay.
What I think I'll do is eye eBay for a couple of weeks and just see how prices are for both the 20 and the 40, if an affordable 40d comes up that leaves me adequate lens money then I'll go for it. Otherwise, I'll happily grab a 20D.
Thanks again
See if you can find the body locally. If it's on craigslist you might be able to talk them down and actually see the camera in person to make sure it's a good deal. I think a lot of these cameras are bought and not used so there doesn't seem to be any shortage on the second hand market for the older cameras. I got mine off another forum I frequent, in the marketplace of almost any forum lies an unsold DSLR.
EarthQuake- You have the same mindset as me, I'm always scanning ebay for those gems. I have half of a Subaru impreza at my house because of this type of buying you speak of. Isn't it great to get sweet shit for cheap/free though? I feel bad for people who pay full price because almost everything I own I can't afford.
I was a pioneer of ebay though, I think I was one of the first 100,000 members when it was free and had a real community (97?). I really want that account back haha, I let it die once they started charging and I declared ebay "over", I was probably 14.
I think I might just get the 50mm at the store, it was $125 when I stopped at the local shop. Would probably be the only new lens I ever buy.
Oh also Shaffer, in regards to that sigma lens: It will most likely not work, you should be leery of any Sigma lenses for EF that are over 5 years old. Canon/Sigma are notorious for breaking compatibility with these lenses. Same goes for Quantaray.
I find Nikon/Pentax/Minolta/Sony have better compatibility with these third party lenses, for whatever reason.
I saw a 'Fuji 52750 12MP Bridge Camera' today going for 190 euros (on sale, apparently), so I came home to check it out online, but couldn't find a single mention of it on google. Anyone know why? Are Fuji cameras generally good enough? As a first time camera buyer, am I even going to notice half the things you guys discuss in this thread? It shoots 720P video, but I was primarily wondering about the lens. Wondering if it was bad in low light etc. Don't want grainy snaps Any advice would be great.
EDIT: So I guess its an S2750 :rolleyes: The people typing out the posters are Argos must be idiots. Checking now, still can't find a lot to go on though.
Bridge cameras have to use positively minuscule sensors to still get the crazy reach their lenses have in a compact package. You will absolutely get grainy images in anything other than sunlight.
If you want good image quality in a small package (relatively speaking) you'll have to accept a reasonable lens reach, something like 3x, maybe 4x. If you want crazy zoom reach but good image quality, you're going to have to use a bigger lens and camera.
Right, and aside from price, bridge cameras are generally just worthless. You've got a big bulky camera to carry around but none of the benefits of a real dSLR, so why the hell not just get a compact?
Earthquake- I got that lens in the mail yesterday and it works, so I didn't end up with a useless lens. This one was rechipped or a later model or something, it's exactly as I described earlier.
Oh, nice! Yeah sigma will rechip them if they're not too old, and likely the previous owner got it done then. Didn't see you mention it was rechipped.
I've got a quantaray 24mm 2.8 sitting here that would be nice if I could get it rechipped, but think its too old and no real support for quantaray even tho its a sigma design.
Maybe you can do it yourself, I suspect the parts to be rare though since sigma no longer does it themselves. Might be another ebay niche deal market though, the re-chipped ones that people overlook. The ad I got mine from said they tested it with a 7D so I figured I was good.
Yeah probably not worth the effort. IMO its best to just avoid older sigma lenses if they're not "DC/DG"(for digital), or you know they have been chipped.
Ended up going with the bridge, can't afford a fill DSLR right now and besides I'm just starting out... was playing around with it today.
These are untouched apart from resizing. Gonna look into post processing, find some tutorials. Can anyone reccomend some good ones? I'll test the video capability later on in the week.
Lots of really good advice it seems on this thread.
I have just entered in the market for a dslr camera. I will be going to Italy in September and figured now was the time to get into photography a bit. I had always wanted to take up photography as side hobby, seems a lot of other artist here do as well.
I'm looking at getting the Canon 20d, with a nice 50mm lens. I just wanted some ideas on lenses and also the best spot to buy this stuff. I have a lot more I need to learn, so any further advise would be great. This thread just has so much to take in, I figured I would just ask to be safe. Thanks!
Ebay is where I buy all my used gear. I've made a few posts here in the thread on"why ebay isn't evil", that you may want to take a look at. If you still feel leery about ebay; keh.com is a great place to look. They tend to have the largest selection of used gear, and at good prices as well. A 20d body should cost you about $200-225 used on ebay, and you may find one with the kit 18-55mm for that price or slightly more, the 18-55mm is a decent lens(even though everyone thinks it is terrible) to have because of the very wide 18mm lens, which is essential on a crop body. A 20D on keh will likely run $250-300.
I would recommend you buy the 20D used, and the 50mm new(for $110-120 ish) because the build quality is so poor on it, its so cheap, and sells for nearly as much used.
Beyond the 50mm, some good lenses to think about, prices below are for ebay, Keh will run higher:
Primes:
Canon 28mm 2.8 ~$175 a good combo with the 50mm on a budget
Canon 28mm 1.8 ~$400, great lens but for the price, the sigma is probably better
Sigma 30mm 1.4 ~$400 great low light general purpose
Canon 35mm 2.0 ~$225 great general purose, moderatly fast lest, but not a good pairing with a 50mm if these are your only lenses
Canon 50mm 2.5 macro ~$200, this is a decent choice over the 50mm 1.8 if you would rather have close focusing than the extra speed(likely not many people would, but who knows)
Canon 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0 ~$300, good portrait/short telephoto lenses
Cosina/Promaster/Vivitar/etc 100mm 3.5 macro $$75-150, cheap as hell, slow loud focusing, but awesome image quality and a fraction of what you would pay for name brand macro lens
Zooms:
Sigma 15-30mm 3.5-4.5, ~$250, a good alternative to the 18-55mm, if you want the super-wide range. This would be a good pairing with the 50mm lens, but the price is a bit steep
Canon 18-55mm II IS ~$100, if you dont get one of these or the earlier version with a body, this is a good lens to have, but if you're looking specifically for it, do not buy the old version. Make sure you get the II IS, as it has more features, and improved optics and wont cost more than $20-30 extra.
Canon 24-85mm USM 3.5-4.5 ~$175, this is one of the best "value" zooms canon makes, it is older and has better build quality, full time manual focusing etc. It also has a pretty wide 24mm end, that is likely wide enough for most situations. This makes it a relatively good walk around lens.
Canon 28-105mm USM 3.5-4.5, ~$175 similar to the above but less wide and more long, I would go with the 24-85 over this, but its worth mentioning.
Canon 28-135mm IS 3.5-5.6 ~$250, another good general purpose lens, even more on the wide end again, honestly at this price point I would rather invest in a good prime than a zoom.
Zooms are slow and blurry, but convenient, primes are fast and sharp, but you've gotta have a few of them, and interchange frequently.
Great info as always EQ
It could be a good idea to think what kind of photography are you interested in and based on that to get lens that are appropriate. So if you know tell us and then we could be more specific.
EDIT: I also have a question EQ or somebody else: I have been on ebay for the last 2 - 3 weeks trying to get one of those canon 85mm f/1.8 and they cost 420 from B&H brand new and they sell on ebay for 390 or so + shipping and I just dont get it. Why is the price the same and why would someone get used lens for 10$ less than a brand new one with 2 years warranty?
I am sure there is something I dont understand
If thats what you're seeing go for the new lens. Last time I looked it seemed like you could get a used one for $300-325 though. Looking now they seem to average about $350.
Then settle on a price, and use an auction sniping program(I use http://www.auctionsniper.com/, i think the first few snipes are free, then 1% fee) and just snipe the auctions until you win one at a price you like, which takes time and patients.
As far as why you would buy one used for almost the same cost as new well, a couple reasons, some people are just dumb and dont do a very good job researching, they think a used lens on ebay is automatically a good deal. Some people have limited local options and some places do not ship international, then its probabbly a much better deal.
Thanks again EQ. What a nice tool is this sniper think. I wish I knew about it last week when I stayed up till 4 am to wait on one of those silly auctions that I lost I dont really trade on ebay ever since I moved back to Bulgaria because the postal services are not very reliable and an item can go missing very easy and nobody is responsible after that. This time is different because i have someone coming back from the states and they will bring it to me.
Speaking of that I got a lovely OPTOMAX 135mm f/2.8 but I am still waiting on a adapter so I can actually use it and I am very curious to see how will this adapter confirm the focus and if the quality is any good.
Thanks again.
Same lens is sold under Rokinon, Promaster, Opteka, Vivitar, Bower, etc etc, but all are Samyang made. It gives full 180(167 on Canon, stupid 1.6 crop) rectangular fisheye on a crop body. No AF, manual aperture, but this should be fine on a lens of this sort.
Paid $210. Which is cheap as hell bro! You can buy em new for about $280 as well. Will post some shots in the other thread when I get it, just though other people might be interested in a cheap ass fisheye, because honestly, who wants to spend $600+ or whatever for a fisheye? =P
Hi guys, i would like to solicit some advice here. I have decided to get an upgrade from my sony t500 point and shoot to real camera. I have initially chosen Canon d90 but i got really attracted to the g12 and to the sony nex-5. I really want a dslr but the compact ones seem to get my attention. Do you guys think that i should go for the g12? I'm not a photographer and i just want something to take casual pictures with. Any opinions would be very much appreciated.
Out of those choices I would have to recommend the NEX-5, however it isn;t really that compact when you throw a lens on it. So at that point, you're probably better off with just a standard size SLR. But the Lumix GF1/2, Olympus EP1/2, Sony NEX-3/5 are all very capable cameras that can deliver excellent results, even compared to a pro-level compact camera like the S90, G12, etc, simply because they are "real" dSLRs.
When we look at cost of "PRO" compact cameras, we see:
Canon S95: $400
Canon G12: $500
Really, you can buy a semi-pro used DSLR system for this cost, or a brand new M4/3 DSLR system for just a little more. When you consider you're getting a lot more camera for your dollar here, I think the choice is obvious. However, you really have to ask yourself: "Does size really matter?". The g12 itself isn't really all that small, the S90/95 is. The NEX-5 body is tiny, but the lenses are about as big as full size Canon EF lenses, so its not really a "small" camera. The Olympus/Lumix cameras are smaller in practical terms, with the pancake lenses.
Now, if you throw a zoom lens on any of these m4/3 cameras, they are going to be big. Not quite as bit as a full size DSLR, but much bigger than a compact camera. The NEX especially.
I would personally go for something like the Olympus EP-1 kit with 17mm 2.8 pancake lens. This is cheap, about $500-550, small enough to reasonably carry it around with you, with maybe a small camera bag or something. And then get the 14-42mm zoom for when you want a bit more versatility. Or even just stick with the 17mm pancake - tho this is something I would suggest to someone who wants to seriously learn photography, less for someone who just wants to take some snapshots every now and then.
If you have no interest beyond casual snapshots, go for the S90/S95. Its really about the best you can do at the size. But if you want more than that, or feel you might want more in the future, its far too much too spend now on a compact camera you'll replace when you find its shortcomings.
However, for casual snapshots, $400 is probably too much to spend as well. I still sort of fail to see exactly what demographic the S90/S95 has. I guess its a good camera if you have a lot of excess income, but don't really care tooo much about photography. =P
The Nex sensors are noticeably better than the M4/3 offerings (in noise and dynamic range). The Nex-3 with kit lens and 16mm is an incredible value, and you can mount almost any lens ever with a cheap adapter. My one reason for not getting one is that there isn't a good, cheap, small 35mm f/2 or faster lens option for it.
Also, it is actually pretty compact and light in comparison to a dslr. An s90 is worlds smaller, yes, but if you want a good sensor, nothing is smaller than the Nex bodies, and the lenses are the same size or smaller than DSLR lenses.
Also the panasonic 20mm 1.7 is sooo much better than the 17mm 2.8.
Plus with an articulated screen, it's possible to use the NEx at waist level with the screen flipped out so you are looking down at it. Much less conspicuous than an arm's length LCD experience of the M4/3 or S90.
Also the s90 is not 400 dollars. You can get new ones for around 300, and used ones for closer to 200. Nothing else offers that image quality and lens coverage for that price, nothing.
Well, the point I was making about the nex, is that with most 1st party lenses, its actually going to be larger than an Oly/Lumix counterpart, and if size is a big concern, that is something to think about. Certainly a 1.5x crop Sony is going to beat out a 2x crop Oly/Lumix, however all 3 are going to spank the s90 when it comes to sensor, and for a first time, casual user, I think its safe to say that he'd notice the difference between a S90 and a EP1, more than he would an EP1 and a NEX-5.
As far as comparisons to a full size DSRL, sure the NEX-5 is smaller, I never said otherwise, however, with a kit zoom attached I certainly wouldn't refer to it as overlay compact. An entry level DSLR isn't going to be *that* much bigger, and will likely be a lot more comfortable to actually shoot with. Its not like you can fit a NEX in your pocket or something, so you're stuck carrying a camera bag with you either way.
I said the S95 is about $400. The S90 actually sells new on ebay/amazon for $285-490, and the S95 new for $350-450, so the prices I quoted were hardly out of line. Used, $200 is the absolute min you can pick up an S90 for, so it isn't really realistic to say you can get them for 200. So no, an S90 sells closer to about $350 on average.
I was reading about using the Pany 20mm 1.7 on a Oly body the other day, and that could be a pretty great setup actually. Pick up a EP-1 body for $250-300 and used 20mm 1.7 for $350, would make a pretty nice kit for a beginner.
You sort of hit the nail on the head about the Nex and lenses, as right now the selection is really quite poor, you cant use Pany/Oly lenses(which can be used on either system), you can get an adaptor to use Alpha/Maxxum lenses, but at that point, you're better off with a full size SLR. The nex pancake is a super wide 24mm equiv, whereas Panasonic offers a 40mm equiv, and Olympus a 35mm equiv, which are going to be much better ranges for general photography. All this considered, is hard to say the NEX is far and away the best option. Is it a good option? Sure, does it have the potential to be fantastic? Of course, but Its not really there yet with the current lenses available.
[edit] Lumix + kit zoom/Nex + kit zoom are about the same size, Oly + kit zoom is significantly smaller
Sorry I am late to the party but I wanted to jump in and just give my personal opinion of the Nex. I got one a couple months ago and absolutely love it. It is small enough to take around without a camera bag, it may be getting bigger with kit lenses on it but its still nowhere near as big or bulky as a full size DSLR. And in comparison I can walk around the mall or something with the Nex around my neck and not draw too much attention as a photog.
The other big draw for me was getting a chance to play with some really strange old lenses. Generally if I go out for lunch or dinner with friends I will toss this old Industar 69 lens on which keeps the package pretty compact and it takes some fun pics. In general the Nex is small enough to comfortably have on you in casual situations and thats the best part since it is pretty hard to take photos if your camera is always in a bag at home.
Most of what you said also applies to a lumix/oly m43 camera as well, but I digress, I dont want to be the "Nex hater" or something here. If I'm looking for a mirror less dslr to play around with oldschool lenses and such its probably the nex only because of the bigger sensor. But M4/3 cameras have the same "use virtually any lens" feature, you've only got 2mm more on a Nex.
For both systems you can do C-mount lenses with an adaptor that extends into the camera, and looks like the NEX can even do Bolex, but I mean really for all practical purposes, both of these systems "can use virtually every lens every made". Most lenses you'll actually want to use are going to be Leica M/m39 size or larger. Any lens that is likely to be so small that you can mount on NEX but not M4/3 is most likely going to vignette like mad on a 1.5x crop sensor too.
Howeverrrrrr, if we're suggesting cameras for someone deciding over a consumer P&S, and a compact mirrorless DSLR, I doubt using a 60 year old russian tessar is going to be high on his list of needs. =P
And on that topic, anyone looking for a cheap ass pancake lens for your EOS might want to look at the INDUSTAR 50-2, m42 50mm 3.5 pancake. They sell for pretty cheap but almost always from Russia/the Ukraine.
1. Don't be swayed by people who heavily advocate a certain brand. From past experience, they'll usually have little or no experience with others.
2. Write a list of the most important features that you want in a camera. (microadjustment, pentaprism etc) - then find a camera that covers most of these bases, within your price range.
3. You're buying into the brand, so if you're serious about photography, then it can be very expensive. Take a look into the recent history of the company's cameras and spot their business plan. Also look into the issues people/pros have had with brands. This will tell a lot.
5. Write a list of what lenses you want. In reference to an earlier post, some zooms are sharper than some primes, so you'd need to learn to read and use mtf graphs (ie photodo)
6. If you want to know about sensor quality, use a site like DxOMark.
7. Lastly, I've come across so much regurgitated information and cr*p on the internet about cameras. Take what you read with a pinch of salt and find a good reputable source to back it up.
Replies
Yep, 20D is nice, but the 40D is an upgrade. If you were only going to get a single lens and body and shoot for a while, if you can swing it, I'd get the 40d, but the 20d isn't way behind.
Also just wanted to put this here: http://www.smdsphotography.com/upload/f3b.jpg ISO 6400 crop from the x100
What I think I'll do is eye eBay for a couple of weeks and just see how prices are for both the 20 and the 40, if an affordable 40d comes up that leaves me adequate lens money then I'll go for it. Otherwise, I'll happily grab a 20D.
Thanks again
Dayum that ain't bad
Anyone have any view's on the A55?
The thing that puts me off the Sony is it looks cheaply built compared to the D90. The other thing is the whole "buying into the system" motto. I know there's nowhere as many lenses for the Sony, compared to Canon and Nikon. Although Sony's equivalent lenses do look slightly cheaper money wise.
But the Sony seems to offer more features over the D90 for around the same price, but the Nikon seems to have better ISO and dynamic range, which is what i see more important for low light and HDR stuff.
One super huge, amazinly great thing about sony is this:
All those Minolta Maxxum AF lenses? Well maybe you've never even heard of them, but there is a good selection of old used Maxxum lenses, that can be had on the CHEAP people do not realize Sony bought Minolta, and Sony alpha dSLRs fully support these old Minolta lenses. So when looking at Sony bodies, consider that. Most sony lenses are rebranded Minolta designs.
For instance, you can buy a
Maxxum 50mm 1.4 used for $200-250
Maxxum 50mm 1.8 $40-70
Maxxum 28mm 2.8 $75-100
Maxxum 24mm 2.8 $160-185
And a variety of decent zooms, in the $50-200 range like:
28-85mm
100-200mm
70-210mm F4 "beercan"
So when thinking sony, think minolta! Along with a variety of 3rd party lenses listed for Minolta AF mount. Sony also has in-body image stabilization, which is nice. Minolta may not be Canon or Nikon, but they make quality lenses and are a step above 3rd party sigma/tamron/tokina/etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_AF
Sony also makes pretty amazing sensors. They even provide some of Nikon's sensors.
Beginner questions:
-Do you usually set your ISO yourself (to like 100-200 during the day and 3600 in a dimly lit room) or do you leave it to auto?
-Do you take pictures primarily in M mode or do you also use the Av and Tv modes? (I know what they do, but was just wondering).
-How much editing do you usually do on the pc? (and do you adjust one picture, store the adjustments as an action and apply them to all similar pictures? or what are your tricks here?)
My current camera doesn't have auto ISO, so I normally set it to where I think the general brightness should be, then see if I can keep the aperture and shutter speeds I want, and adjust ISO if needed.
I mainly take images in M mode with spot metering mode. Because I know what my subject is going to be and where I want to place it in the exposure zone wise. (this is not going to make sense if you haven't read the book)
I normally load all my raw files into lightroom, then go through all of them, starring the "keepers" as 1, or 2 if I think they are super good. Then I make lightroom hide all but those with 1 star, and I go in and edit them with rough settings, copying across similar photos when they can be reused. Then I go in and try to star only the really good ones with 2 stars, do final edits, then upload to flickr or facebook. I do further editing for the ones that go on my portfolio or will be printed, mostly in photoshop.
I dont use auto iso but if I am to shoot something fast and I dont have time to adjust everything for the next shot I use A mode but only if I know that my speed will not drop down bellow 1/60.
Also I do the same with lightroom and send the best images to PS where I play with the colors. If I think an image is really good and I have an idea where I want to go with it I might work on it for a full day
Outdoors:
ISO 100-200 sunny day
ISO 200-400 in the shade/shady/overcast day
ISO 400-800 later in the day/sunset
ISO 800-1600 night stuff
Indoors:
ISO 400 for well lit, good natural light
ISO 400-800 for meh lighting
ISO 1600 for poor lighting
ISO 1600 -1 or -2 EV for really bad lighting(no iso 3200 on my 350D =((( )
ISO 100-200 for anything where I have a tripod.
Of course this is all dependent on lens too, and these higher iso shots will be taken at f1.4/1.8
I did read that Sony had bought them, but didn't read enough into it. I didn't know the about the mounts being compatible.
Seems Sony have a good choice for lenses then, not what i originally expected.
Depending on exactly the lenses you want to get it may/may not be a good idea. But it certainly isn't a terrible idea in general terms.
Just that I shoot everything on M.
I hate it when my camera starts doing things I do not like. Specialy with following bugs, insects, bird ect, you do not want your shutterspeed to suddenly drop, or get weird exposures by having it on auto. Specialy keep it on M if you have a lighting value in your img you want to capture, you might need a heavier setting then your camera will give you.
If you do it alot on M, you develope a sense for your settings anyway.
I'm more of a try it out person, i wont meter, i just look at what the situation is and set my settings accordingly. Give it a shot, see how close my estimate was, and give it another click to finetune the setting.
I have to anyway, when you walk around it is all about estimating.
Some preferences of mine are,
-Keeping the ISO as low as possible, only if my other settings start to drop below prefered i start to bump it up. So start at a 100, see if you can get a clean result, and if needed start adding a bit.
-My shutter mostly not lower 125 when shooting from the hand.
-My F is mostly a variation of things, i like to keep this one low, and add my powers to the shutter speed so i dont have a bird blurring up the picture.
Another setting I like to use is, RAW + small quality jpg.
When skipping through photos in a folder, raw files can be a bit of a pain.
So i look at the jpg's to see which photo i like to keep or edit, write down some numbers and then go over to the raws.
edit//
If you do keep it on auto, you should look up which points your camera uses to calculate its settings with. Long time ago that i looked into this, but it can use multiple metering points for a total picture to balance it out, or you can grab the spotmetering point in the center, so when you point it at a bird in the sky, it does not try to compensate for the blue around the bird.
That said, having a fullframe camera has spoiled me a little :P ISO1600 is the new ISO200 for me, you can barely tell the difference between the too
Quite a nice selection of prime lenses on ebay, along with some a700's. My only prob with getting the body used is there'll be no warranty.
I didn't really even care about getting a zoom right away but I figured it would be good to play around with. I'm going to buy EF 50mm 1.8 this week no matter what. People keep answering my wanted ad on craigslist and then not following through with selling me the damn lens.
I found this database of Canon lenses on a photog forum not sure if you guys have seen this.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406
Thanks for the shooting tips I'm shooting in manual at all time right now, I figured that would be the best learning experience. I will have to try Av.
However, here is a little secret of mine, for anyone looking for the most common primes(Canon/Nikon 50mm 18/28mm 2.8 esp);
Look under the "film cameras" section on ebay. Usually you can find an older AF film body with the lens, and for a 50mm 1.8 + camera it might sell for $60-80. If you're like me you then resell the camera body for $30 or something, but not everyone has the time to do that. Even at 60-80 you're still getting a deal.
So, my sister in law wanted a nikon dSLR. I found her a D80 kit with the 18-55 and 55-200mm kit lenses, which will likely be sold to fund some other lens. I was reading the review on dpreview and found it curious that they were comparing the D80 to the 400D. When I look at the features, ergonomics and controls of the D80, I compare it more to the 40D than the 400D, but I guess at the time of release it was priced similar to the 400D.
I got the kit for $514 shipped. I also picked up a Nikon N4004 AF film camera with the 50mm 1.8 AF lens for $75 shipped. This lens tends to sell for $90-120 used and 120-150 new so i'm pretty happy. I'll sell the body for 20-30 and have a 50mm 1.8 for a net of about $55, yay.
EarthQuake- You have the same mindset as me, I'm always scanning ebay for those gems. I have half of a Subaru impreza at my house because of this type of buying you speak of. Isn't it great to get sweet shit for cheap/free though? I feel bad for people who pay full price because almost everything I own I can't afford.
I was a pioneer of ebay though, I think I was one of the first 100,000 members when it was free and had a real community (97?). I really want that account back haha, I let it die once they started charging and I declared ebay "over", I was probably 14.
I think I might just get the 50mm at the store, it was $125 when I stopped at the local shop. Would probably be the only new lens I ever buy.
I find Nikon/Pentax/Minolta/Sony have better compatibility with these third party lenses, for whatever reason.
EDIT: So I guess its an S2750 :rolleyes: The people typing out the posters are Argos must be idiots. Checking now, still can't find a lot to go on though.
EDIT 2: Hmm...worth the difference in price?
http://www.argos.ie/static/Product/partNumber/5593543/Trail/searchtext%3EFUJI.htm
http://www.argos.ie/static/Product/partNumber/5595125/Trail/searchtext%3EFUJI.htm
If you want good image quality in a small package (relatively speaking) you'll have to accept a reasonable lens reach, something like 3x, maybe 4x. If you want crazy zoom reach but good image quality, you're going to have to use a bigger lens and camera.
:P
I've got a quantaray 24mm 2.8 sitting here that would be nice if I could get it rechipped, but think its too old and no real support for quantaray even tho its a sigma design.
These are untouched apart from resizing. Gonna look into post processing, find some tutorials. Can anyone reccomend some good ones? I'll test the video capability later on in the week.
It is a free 3 days workshop streaming online :
Posing and Lighting with Bambi Cantrell
I have just entered in the market for a dslr camera. I will be going to Italy in September and figured now was the time to get into photography a bit. I had always wanted to take up photography as side hobby, seems a lot of other artist here do as well.
I'm looking at getting the Canon 20d, with a nice 50mm lens. I just wanted some ideas on lenses and also the best spot to buy this stuff. I have a lot more I need to learn, so any further advise would be great. This thread just has so much to take in, I figured I would just ask to be safe. Thanks!
I would recommend you buy the 20D used, and the 50mm new(for $110-120 ish) because the build quality is so poor on it, its so cheap, and sells for nearly as much used.
Beyond the 50mm, some good lenses to think about, prices below are for ebay, Keh will run higher:
Primes:
Canon 28mm 2.8 ~$175 a good combo with the 50mm on a budget
Canon 28mm 1.8 ~$400, great lens but for the price, the sigma is probably better
Sigma 30mm 1.4 ~$400 great low light general purpose
Canon 35mm 2.0 ~$225 great general purose, moderatly fast lest, but not a good pairing with a 50mm if these are your only lenses
Canon 50mm 2.5 macro ~$200, this is a decent choice over the 50mm 1.8 if you would rather have close focusing than the extra speed(likely not many people would, but who knows)
Canon 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0 ~$300, good portrait/short telephoto lenses
Cosina/Promaster/Vivitar/etc 100mm 3.5 macro $$75-150, cheap as hell, slow loud focusing, but awesome image quality and a fraction of what you would pay for name brand macro lens
Zooms:
Sigma 15-30mm 3.5-4.5, ~$250, a good alternative to the 18-55mm, if you want the super-wide range. This would be a good pairing with the 50mm lens, but the price is a bit steep
Canon 18-55mm II IS ~$100, if you dont get one of these or the earlier version with a body, this is a good lens to have, but if you're looking specifically for it, do not buy the old version. Make sure you get the II IS, as it has more features, and improved optics and wont cost more than $20-30 extra.
Canon 24-85mm USM 3.5-4.5 ~$175, this is one of the best "value" zooms canon makes, it is older and has better build quality, full time manual focusing etc. It also has a pretty wide 24mm end, that is likely wide enough for most situations. This makes it a relatively good walk around lens.
Canon 28-105mm USM 3.5-4.5, ~$175 similar to the above but less wide and more long, I would go with the 24-85 over this, but its worth mentioning.
Canon 28-135mm IS 3.5-5.6 ~$250, another good general purpose lens, even more on the wide end again, honestly at this price point I would rather invest in a good prime than a zoom.
Zooms are slow and blurry, but convenient, primes are fast and sharp, but you've gotta have a few of them, and interchange frequently.
Canon 24mm 1.4L $1200
Canon 35mm 1.4L $1200
Canon 50mm 1.2L $1400
Canon 85mm 1.2L $1700
Canon 135mm 2.0L $900
Canon 16-35mm 2.8L $1400
Canon 17-55mm 2.8L $850
Canon 24-70mm 2.8L $1200
Canon 70-200mm 2.8L $1800
Just for fun.
It could be a good idea to think what kind of photography are you interested in and based on that to get lens that are appropriate. So if you know tell us and then we could be more specific.
EDIT: I also have a question EQ or somebody else: I have been on ebay for the last 2 - 3 weeks trying to get one of those canon 85mm f/1.8 and they cost 420 from B&H brand new and they sell on ebay for 390 or so + shipping and I just dont get it. Why is the price the same and why would someone get used lens for 10$ less than a brand new one with 2 years warranty?
I am sure there is something I dont understand
What I do is pretty simple, check completed listings:
http://completed.shop.ebay.com/i.html?LH_Complete=1&LH_ItemCondition=12&_nkw=canon+ef+85mm+1.8&_trkparms=65%253A13%257C66%253A2%257C39%253A1&rt=nc&_dmpt=Camera_Lenses&_sticky=1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_sop=16&_sc=1
(you'll need to be logged in to see that)
Then settle on a price, and use an auction sniping program(I use http://www.auctionsniper.com/, i think the first few snipes are free, then 1% fee) and just snipe the auctions until you win one at a price you like, which takes time and patients.
As far as why you would buy one used for almost the same cost as new well, a couple reasons, some people are just dumb and dont do a very good job researching, they think a used lens on ebay is automatically a good deal. Some people have limited local options and some places do not ship international, then its probabbly a much better deal.
Speaking of that I got a lovely OPTOMAX 135mm f/2.8 but I am still waiting on a adapter so I can actually use it and I am very curious to see how will this adapter confirm the focus and if the quality is any good.
Thanks again.
http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-Digital-Camera-Bodies/1/sku-DC029990723120?r=FE
It took me a while to figure out what the hell was going on with all the different postings for 20D bodies.
As for the lens. I think I will just grab the standard Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 II for starters. Then move up shortly after to something a little better.
http://www.lenstip.com/160.1-Lens_review-Samyang_8_mm_f_3.5_Aspherical_IF_MC_Fish-eye_Introduction.html
Same lens is sold under Rokinon, Promaster, Opteka, Vivitar, Bower, etc etc, but all are Samyang made. It gives full 180(167 on Canon, stupid 1.6 crop) rectangular fisheye on a crop body. No AF, manual aperture, but this should be fine on a lens of this sort.
Paid $210. Which is cheap as hell bro! You can buy em new for about $280 as well. Will post some shots in the other thread when I get it, just though other people might be interested in a cheap ass fisheye, because honestly, who wants to spend $600+ or whatever for a fisheye? =P
When we look at cost of "PRO" compact cameras, we see:
Canon S95: $400
Canon G12: $500
Really, you can buy a semi-pro used DSLR system for this cost, or a brand new M4/3 DSLR system for just a little more. When you consider you're getting a lot more camera for your dollar here, I think the choice is obvious. However, you really have to ask yourself: "Does size really matter?". The g12 itself isn't really all that small, the S90/95 is. The NEX-5 body is tiny, but the lenses are about as big as full size Canon EF lenses, so its not really a "small" camera. The Olympus/Lumix cameras are smaller in practical terms, with the pancake lenses.
Now, if you throw a zoom lens on any of these m4/3 cameras, they are going to be big. Not quite as bit as a full size DSLR, but much bigger than a compact camera. The NEX especially.
I would personally go for something like the Olympus EP-1 kit with 17mm 2.8 pancake lens. This is cheap, about $500-550, small enough to reasonably carry it around with you, with maybe a small camera bag or something. And then get the 14-42mm zoom for when you want a bit more versatility. Or even just stick with the 17mm pancake - tho this is something I would suggest to someone who wants to seriously learn photography, less for someone who just wants to take some snapshots every now and then.
If you have no interest beyond casual snapshots, go for the S90/S95. Its really about the best you can do at the size. But if you want more than that, or feel you might want more in the future, its far too much too spend now on a compact camera you'll replace when you find its shortcomings.
However, for casual snapshots, $400 is probably too much to spend as well. I still sort of fail to see exactly what demographic the S90/S95 has. I guess its a good camera if you have a lot of excess income, but don't really care tooo much about photography. =P
Also, it is actually pretty compact and light in comparison to a dslr. An s90 is worlds smaller, yes, but if you want a good sensor, nothing is smaller than the Nex bodies, and the lenses are the same size or smaller than DSLR lenses.
Also the panasonic 20mm 1.7 is sooo much better than the 17mm 2.8.
Plus with an articulated screen, it's possible to use the NEx at waist level with the screen flipped out so you are looking down at it. Much less conspicuous than an arm's length LCD experience of the M4/3 or S90.
Also the s90 is not 400 dollars. You can get new ones for around 300, and used ones for closer to 200. Nothing else offers that image quality and lens coverage for that price, nothing.
As far as comparisons to a full size DSRL, sure the NEX-5 is smaller, I never said otherwise, however, with a kit zoom attached I certainly wouldn't refer to it as overlay compact. An entry level DSLR isn't going to be *that* much bigger, and will likely be a lot more comfortable to actually shoot with. Its not like you can fit a NEX in your pocket or something, so you're stuck carrying a camera bag with you either way.
I said the S95 is about $400. The S90 actually sells new on ebay/amazon for $285-490, and the S95 new for $350-450, so the prices I quoted were hardly out of line. Used, $200 is the absolute min you can pick up an S90 for, so it isn't really realistic to say you can get them for 200. So no, an S90 sells closer to about $350 on average.
I was reading about using the Pany 20mm 1.7 on a Oly body the other day, and that could be a pretty great setup actually. Pick up a EP-1 body for $250-300 and used 20mm 1.7 for $350, would make a pretty nice kit for a beginner.
You sort of hit the nail on the head about the Nex and lenses, as right now the selection is really quite poor, you cant use Pany/Oly lenses(which can be used on either system), you can get an adaptor to use Alpha/Maxxum lenses, but at that point, you're better off with a full size SLR. The nex pancake is a super wide 24mm equiv, whereas Panasonic offers a 40mm equiv, and Olympus a 35mm equiv, which are going to be much better ranges for general photography. All this considered, is hard to say the NEX is far and away the best option. Is it a good option? Sure, does it have the potential to be fantastic? Of course, but Its not really there yet with the current lenses available.
[edit] Lumix + kit zoom/Nex + kit zoom are about the same size, Oly + kit zoom is significantly smaller
The other big draw for me was getting a chance to play with some really strange old lenses. Generally if I go out for lunch or dinner with friends I will toss this old Industar 69 lens on which keeps the package pretty compact and it takes some fun pics. In general the Nex is small enough to comfortably have on you in casual situations and thats the best part since it is pretty hard to take photos if your camera is always in a bag at home.
Looking at some charts:
Leica m39 screw - 28.8mm
Leica M 27.95mm
C-mount 17.5mm
Bolex 15mm
nex 18mm
m43 20mm
For both systems you can do C-mount lenses with an adaptor that extends into the camera, and looks like the NEX can even do Bolex, but I mean really for all practical purposes, both of these systems "can use virtually every lens every made". Most lenses you'll actually want to use are going to be Leica M/m39 size or larger. Any lens that is likely to be so small that you can mount on NEX but not M4/3 is most likely going to vignette like mad on a 1.5x crop sensor too.
Howeverrrrrr, if we're suggesting cameras for someone deciding over a consumer P&S, and a compact mirrorless DSLR, I doubt using a 60 year old russian tessar is going to be high on his list of needs. =P
And on that topic, anyone looking for a cheap ass pancake lens for your EOS might want to look at the INDUSTAR 50-2, m42 50mm 3.5 pancake. They sell for pretty cheap but almost always from Russia/the Ukraine.
So cute!
1. Don't be swayed by people who heavily advocate a certain brand. From past experience, they'll usually have little or no experience with others.
2. Write a list of the most important features that you want in a camera. (microadjustment, pentaprism etc) - then find a camera that covers most of these bases, within your price range.
3. You're buying into the brand, so if you're serious about photography, then it can be very expensive. Take a look into the recent history of the company's cameras and spot their business plan. Also look into the issues people/pros have had with brands. This will tell a lot.
5. Write a list of what lenses you want. In reference to an earlier post, some zooms are sharper than some primes, so you'd need to learn to read and use mtf graphs (ie photodo)
6. If you want to know about sensor quality, use a site like DxOMark.
7. Lastly, I've come across so much regurgitated information and cr*p on the internet about cameras. Take what you read with a pinch of salt and find a good reputable source to back it up.