I had the 10-20 sigma and it was a phenomenal lens on my 40D. I sold both to fund my 5D purchase (even trade) but when I was doing ultrawide stuff I was super happy with it. Even made some nice sized prints and I thought it was much sharper than the Canon 17-40L
Talking about bodies, would you buy a nikon d5100? I've heard its image quality is great.
What i really don't know is if that Expeed 2 sensor + a few upgrades are worth 400 euros more for the dual pack with AF-S VR lenses (18-55 & 55-200mm).
Talking about bodies, would you buy a nikon d5100? I've heard its image quality is great.
What i really don't know is if that Expeed 2 sensor + a few upgrades are worth 400 euros more for the dual pack with AF-S VR lenses (18-55 & 55-200mm).
What do you think?
Go a couple pages back, unless you want to stick with the cheap/shitty kit lenses and overpriced fast zooms available for them, STAY AWAY from low end Nikon bodies, period! You wont be able to use many of Nikons best and most affordable fast, sharp prime lenses.
Spend your money on glass, not fancy new features and more megapixels or whatever the 5100 offers. With low end Nikon bodies, its hard to invest in glass, as the selection is so limited.
A 5 year old Nikon D80 + Nikon 85mm 1.8, Nikon 28mm 2.8 or any other of the wide variety of lenses you can not use on a D5100 is going to take better pictures than even the newest and fanciest low end "crippled" Nikon body.
A D80 + 28mm 2.8 + 50mm 1.8 + 85mm 1.8 used is going to run like $1000 all together... A D5100 + 18-55mm + 55-200mm will cost like $1200 or something? The older D80 kit will own it as far as the pictures you take, and will only lack a bit in megapixels, noise performance, and features you don't really need like video.
Look at it this way, here are some standard, high quality Nikon zooms, fast 2.8:
Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 $1000-1500
Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 $1500-2000
Now, when you look at nikon primes on low end, all you can get is 35mm and 50mm. On a low end body, you simply can not replace these lenses with primes.
So lets look at canon, you can get these fast normal zooms(these are also significantly cheaper than Nikon, keke):
Canon 17-55mm 2.8 $850-1250
Canon 24-70mm 2.8 $1000-1500
OR, if we take the magic number of $1250, we can replace these lenses with some super sharp, and fast primes. When you break it all down, cheaping out on a low end Nikon over a low end Canon, or a higher end Nikon, will cost you in lenses, it just doesn't make sense any way you cut it.
Grand total $1000.
You could even get the 50mm 1.4 here instead of the 1.8 and still be about the same cost as a quality zoom, so, with Canon you just have much, much better options, regardless of price.
If all you want is a low end body, and a 18-55mm kit lens, then... None of this matters, brand doesn't matter, its not even remotely worth discussing, but if you want anything more than that, serious consideration must be made.
If you just want one really nice general purpose zoom, and hate the idea of primes, well then maybe a low end Nikon body is moot. But even in this case, for your money, you're better off going Canon. To the tune of about $500, or the cost difference between a D3100 and Canon 60D. =P
This seams like plenty, until we start to look at affordable(less than $400) primes, the list then becomes:
35mm 1.8 DX
50mm 1.4 G
50mm 1.8 G
.... and that is fucking-it. This is pathetic, I would never recommend anyone get a Nikon body that doesn't have a focus motor. These cameras are for noobs who will buy the camera with the kit lens, and never consider another lens(or just get another cheap kit tele zoom).
On the other hand, canon prime lenses under or around $400
Just to summarize some points i've made over and over here, and just to provide a really simple "Quick look" sort of guide.
1. If you want the best lens selection, go Canon. Nikon is equivalent but only with mid-range bodies and higher, anything low-end is severely limited.
2. If you insist on Nikon but want the best image quality, suck it up and get a mid-range body that works with all Nikon lenses, even if you need to buy an older used body to afford it. Getting the latest and cheapest Nikon dSLR because you want the best image quality is an oxymoron.
3. If you want a low end, affordable body with all the latest features, high quality LCD screen, high resolution, good ISO up to 6400, video, etc. Get a Canon T2i, because you can use the full assortment of Canon lenses, this makes a much better choice over competing Nikon(or anyone else)'s bodies, because of the lenses. Even if the T2i is $200 more than that Nikon you're looking at, its actually more affordable when you realize what you have to pay to get a good lens on a low end Nikon body, or realize you need to upgrade to a $1500 Nikon just to be able to use some primes.
4. If you want the latest camera with the latest features and will never use anything but cheap kit lenses, just go to the store and buy whatever feels best in your hands, seriously, these cameras in the same class have so few real differences it just isn't worth discussing. Anyone who tells you the D5100 is going to give you better image quality in real life situations than a T2i is smoking crack.
5. If you want to build a budget system that gives you great photos, get the cheapest body you can find and put the money into lenses. You can get a Canon 20D or a Nikon 70D for like $225, get a 50mm 1.8 lens, plus a 28mm 1.8/35mm 1.8/2.0(canon) to go with it, generally all for less than the cost of even the cheapest dslr kit new in a store. These bodies offer superior build quality and ergonomics over new fancy features that most people dont need. $1-200 extra for a Canon 40D or Nikon D80.
6. "But XXX brand new cheap camera kit does better high iso!!!" Its moot, if you end up using the cheap kit zoom, you'll be at f5.6-f8.0 to get optimal sharpness, a 50mm 1.8 is going to be as sharp as that lens at its best, when the 50mm is at like 2.0 or 2.2, we're talking a 3-4 stop gain here, which makes any high ISO improvements moot. If you shoot at 800 on you 20D with a 50mm 1.8 lens, you would have to shoot at ISO 6400 on a D5100 + kit lens.
Getting cheap sharp and fast primes on a fancy low end body is also a good idea. Best of both worlds etc, but again only if the lens selection is good.
Uhhh yeah, i'll take suggestions for more of these common situations that can be summed up in a few sentences or less. =P
The thing is that i have the new d5100 + 18-55mm + 55-200mm for 1000 euro, and the same kit of lenses with the nikon d5000= 599 euro. I saw that.. and i thought, "that may be a good deal". But knowing that canon has a wider and better range of lenses it makes me to doubt about buying a cheaper nikon . For the nikon i had an eye on the 35mm f1.8 (180€). The other lenses are a little expensive and i wouldn't have cared of paying 400+ euros for a good lense for macro as example.
So, in the Canon side, i have as options the 550D, the 600D and the 60D, but all those much more expensive. The 550 with 18-55 lense is around 650 euros.
The canon lense 55-250 is any good?, i could get a 60d with 18-55 and 55-250 for 1100 euros. There are some other options, much cheaper, like the one with the lense of 18-135mm f/2.8, is that a better option? i could get with it another lense of 50mm f1.8 or a 35mm f2.0.
All the info you would need is already here in this thread but let me just say what I am keep saying : try to think what would you shoot with this camera- this will determine what lens you need and from there you can pick your body. If it was me I would get a second hand body from higher class- does not matter nikon - d80 , or canon 40d + brand new 50mm 1.8
I have no idea in what situation you can get away with slower lens and this 50mm 1.8 for canon or nikon is the cheapest lens you can get any way so...
Those are all just personal preference
The thing is that i have the new d5100 + 18-55mm + 55-200mm for 1000 euro, and the same kit of lenses with the nikon d5000= 599 euro. I saw that.. and i thought, "that may be a good deal". But knowing that canon has a wider and better range of lenses it makes me to doubt about buying a cheaper nikon . For the nikon i had an eye on the 35mm f1.8 (180). The other lenses are a little expensive and i wouldn't have cared of paying 400+ euros for a good lense for macro as example.
So, in the Canon side, i have as options the 550D, the 600D and the 60D, but all those much more expensive. The 550 with 18-55 lense is around 650 euros.
The canon lense 55-250 is any good?, i could get a 60d with 18-55 and 55-250 for 1100 euros. There are some other options, much cheaper, like the one with the lense of 18-135mm f/2.8, is that a better option? i could get with it another lense of 50mm f1.8 or a 35mm f2.0.
IMO a 50 euro price difference between the D5000 and the 550D is meaningless, you pay a pittance more for the ability and freedom to use any canon EF lens ever made. So even if you don't think you'll want the 135mm 2.8 macro today, you might change your mind in a couple years. Remember that you're buying into a system, and think about the long term here.
[note] prices from here on in USD, for used prime lenses, may vary elsewhere
If you start shooting with primes, you will want at minimum a 50mm 1.8, and a 28mm 2.8, because these are both really good general purpose lenses under $200. You can't use the Nikon 28mm 2.8 on a D5000 however. A canon 550D + 50mm 1.8 + 28mm 2.8 is an excellent starter kit.
If we look at primes that someone is likely to buy for a system, we come to:
24mm 2.8 $300 ~ 38mm
28mm 2.8 $175 ~ 45mm
28mm 1.8 $400 ~ 45mm
30mm 1.4 $400 ~ 48mm Sigma, Cost New, these have focusing issues and should be serviced, free with a new lens! You'll have to pay with a used one.
35mm 2.0 $225 ~ 56mm
50mm 1.8 $125 ~ 80mm Cost new
50mm 1.4 $350 ~ 80mm
85mm 1.8 $325 ~ 136mm
100mm 2.0 $325 ~ 160mm
Now, you dont need to buy all of these lenses, but if start to get serious with photography, you'll want 2-3 of them. If you look at what sort of zoom lens you need to buy to get similar perforate, any reasonable combination of these lenses is going to save you a lot of money, or offer much superior photograph taking ability, whatever way you want to look at it.
When we look at low end Nikons you can only get
30mm 1.4 ~ 45mm Sigma again
35mm 1.8 ~ 52mm
50mm 1.8 ~ 75mm
50mm 1.4 ~ 75mm
You can get away with just the 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 on a low end Canon, sure, for a while atleast. However, I wouldn't want to be limited to these two, as it just isnt enough. 24mm, 28mm and 85mm lenses to me are essential from a camera system standpoint.
Now another thing to consider, you keep talking about the 55-200/55-250mm lenses, these could run you $2-300, and you very likely do not even need this lens. The canon 55-250mm IS is ~ 88-400mm, you really just do not this much range unless you have super ultra specific purpose for it, like being a creepy guy in the bushes at the local school, or taking bird photos or something. Really with this lens, you'll be hard pressed to use it in anything but the best outdoor lighting conditions. So when we start to really consider things, that you're thinking about spending $2-300 extra for a lens that will be of barely any use, spending 2-300 on a high quality, sharp and fast prime lens that you will be able to use in virtually any situation makes a lot more sense.
When we get into primes, most people can live with just two or three. Here are some potential combos:
A.
28mm 2.8 $175
50mm 1.8 $125
- $300 this covers basically a "normal"(~50mm) range and a portrait type(~80mm) range, this is the cheapest prime kit I would recommend, and what I started out with.
B.
35mm 2.8 $225
50mm 1.8 $125
85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0 $325
- $675, this is a kit geared towards someone more interested in the long range than the wide, with normal(~50mm), portrait(~80mm) and short-medium telephoto(~136mm or ~160mm), but you get it all at the fast speed of 2.0 or better! again this is going to be a 3-4 stop improvement over any zoom lens this side of $500, and you'll likely pay $1000-2000 to get a zoom lens to replace these primes.
C
24mm 2.8 $300
35mm 2.0 $225
50mm 1.8 $125
- $650, this covers the classic ranges, wide(~35mm) normal(~50mm) and portrait(~80mm)
Now, if we think that you're considering spending $300 on a telephoto lens you probably do no need, the price for these kits drops to:
A. same cost
B. $375
C. $350
To me this is a no brainer, and not at all unaffordable. You can buy them one at a time if its too much to spend all at once, or buy them when you feel you need to go wider/longer. If you can get a 55-200/250mm lens, for around $100 or less go for it, any more is not worth it unless you really know exactly how you're going to use it and what its for. I've got cheap 80-200mm lens that I paid like $30(got it with some other crap) for, which is about what it is worth to me considering how much I actually use it(almost never).
Oh another note, a 85mm/100mm lens + even a cheap 2x teleconverter is going to give you better speed, and likely better/equivalent image quality than a low range telephoto zoom. I recently got some off brand 2x with some other stuff, and used with my cheap 100mm lens, I get quite surprisingly acceptable results!
Put a 2x tele on a Canon 100mm 2.0 and you'll end up with a 200mm 2.8 lens, even if the result is a little soft from the 2x, this will give you better pictures than any low range tele zoom.
One last note, we can get a Nice T2i body, and 3 prime lenses, all for less than the cost or about the same cost of a Canon 60D or Nikon D90 kit. Not at all an expensive proposition when you think about it that way.
Now watch, someone will tell me the 85mm 1.8 sells for $800 in Spain. =P Well, this advice is good for anyone in the US at the very least. Looking at ebay Spain you can pick one up for 350 euro new, so if you can find a used one for 250-275 euro, that is probably decent.
I had the 10-20 sigma and it was a phenomenal lens on my 40D. I sold both to fund my 5D purchase (even trade) but when I was doing ultrawide stuff I was super happy with it. Even made some nice sized prints and I thought it was much sharper than the Canon 17-40L
Yeah that's all I have to hear, I'm only interested in the Sigma 10-20. Been looking on ebay and other forums to see if anybody has one used.
For a budget flash I picked up a Yongnuo 560 and it's seems to be pretty nice build quality for $60. Also the body of it is almost identical to the 580ex so the 580ex diffuser fits perfectly on it. Picked up Eneloop rechargeable AA's for it, my girlfriend loves them and recommends them highly.
Edit: Also do you guys have any opinion on the Sony A850? My roommates daddy and mommy just bought one for him.
EQ, i need your help. My Sigma 24mm f1.8 prime has some weird blurriness going on all of a sudden. From one pic to the other all of they seem to have at best some sort of blurry smear on them (some just look totally out of focus even. It's only visible when you look at them fullscreen on pc, but obviously wrong.
Judging by the pics, it happened right after I let my friend try the lens on his D3000. It didn't work, gave some error code on the D3000, so I put it back on mine and kept snapping for two weeks, only to notice half my pictures totally failed.. There's a few 50mm shots between them and they look super-nice compared to the 24mm shots, so it's not the camera...
I'm thinking the autofocus on that lens might have gone bust or something when we put it on the D3000 ?
Yeah that does seem strange. When I first purchased my Sigma 30/1.4, it was backfocusing pretty bad. I sent it into Sigma, with my camera body, and they calibrated it and now its pretty much perfect. It was under warranty, so I only had to pay to ship it to them, it took about two weeks to get it back, including shipping time, which was awesome.
I'm not sure why it would start miss-behaving after being used on the D3000, but it certainly is possible that some of the electronics got messed up. Hey, just another reason to stay away from those low end Nikon bodies, not only do most lenses not work on them, but if you try one, you might break it! =P
Even if your lens isn't under warranty, you should contact Sigma to get a quote on a focus calibration, I can't imagine it will cost much.
One thing I notice on my 30mm, is that it will sometimes allow you to take a photo too quickly, ie: before it has properly finished focusing. For this reason I tend to shoot a lot of multiples, or just wait half a second or so before taking the shot when using the 30mm. I think it has to do with the Full time manual focusing, IE: you can take a shot anytime even if correct focus isnt achieved. So I would do some tests, focus wait a second to make sure you have proper focus, then see how the results look.
Its possible it has been front/back focusing the entire time you've had it, and you're just noticing it now. It would be much more apparent close up, at low apertures, than say, 10 feet at f4 or something. So do some tests wide open at the closest you can focus.
Now if it is a smear or irregular blurring, that sounds more likely to be some sort of lens defect. It could be some fingerprints/smudges on the front or rear element, it could be some fungus growing internally if you live in a very humid/hot area without air conditioning. I would shine a flashlight through the lens and see if there is anything nasty in there. The exterior of the glass is easy enough to clean, if its fungus you'll need to get it repaired, which could cost $1-200 and you might be better off buying a new lens instead.
Now, if its sort of, blurring on just one side of the image, there could be some serious mechanical damage, ie: a lens element has been knock around and is no longer properly centered. This would probably be pretty unlikely. As you would likely notice the sort of blunt force damage that would be required for this to happen.
I'll check for the calibration, might be that. I never dropped it, and it was almost new when i got it a few months ago, so fungus and other horrors are probably not the case.
Here's a before and an after pic, the after is a very clear example. Both 100% crops, same lens and body.
Kinda bummed about it, I was never very happy with it, general colors, sharpness vividness of the images was behind the 50mm Prime at all times, but this makes the thing worth less when selling. I should've just gotten a DX 35mm prime instead
oo damn that looks strange... did it fir properly on the other body? if it did not you might have damaged the connectors or what ever they are called .. have no idea how you can check and if this would affect the image.
I'll check for the calibration, might be that. I never dropped it, and it was almost new when i got it a few months ago, so fungus and other horrors are probably not the case.
Here's a before and an after pic, the after is a very clear example. Both 100% crops, same lens and body.
Kinda bummed about it, I was never very happy with it, general colors, sharpness vividness of the images was behind the 50mm Prime at all times, but this makes the thing worth less when selling. I should've just gotten a DX 35mm prime instead
Being slightly out of focus could cause this, but i'm not sure thats your only problem here.
The lens otherwise seems to function correctly, no errors or weird noises or anything like that?
Alright, so I'm thinking of switching over to a Sony Alpha from my Canon 350D. I was pretty set on getting a T2i at the end of the year, but I'm looking for a comparable Sony. The biggest reason is simply: you can get some dirt cheap lenses for Sony's.
Sigma/Quantaray 24mm 2.8 - which will not work on canon DSLRs- dirt cheap used
Minolta 28mm 2.8 - dirt cheap used
Sony 35mm 1.8 - cheap brand new, could replace my sigma 30mm 1.4
Minolta 50mm 1.7 - dirt cheap used
Minolta 50mm 1.4 - $250ish used
Sony 85mm 2.8 - Cheapish new, but disappointingly slow. Sony doesn't offer a 85mm F2ish lens, which is a disappointing, Canon has the 85mm 1.8 and 1.2, offering a reasonable choice on a budget but still very good lens in the 1.8. Sony has the 85mm 2.8, Minolta 85mm 1.4 and CZ 85mm 1.4. Two expensive 1.4's and no 1.8 or 1.2.
However, I could sell my 30mm 1.4, and basically afford the 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 2.8, so that is extremely tempting. 2.8 isn't that bad when its essentially a 135mm lens on a crop sensor. The 50mm 1.8/1.4 at 75mm on a crop is close enough to a traditional 85mm 1.8 lens for portrait work. And the bokeh you can get from a 135mm lens, even at 2.8, would likely suffice for close up portraits.
I have a Vivitar 100mm 3.5 macro, and a Samyang 8mm fisheye, that I could easily sell and replace for about the same cost in the A mount.
I have a vintage Canon 70-210mm F4 that I just got and love, but could replace with the Minolta 70-210mm F4 beercan.
So, I'm thinking I could save hundreds, maybe thousands over the life of my camera system just going with the cheaper lenses that are available for the A mount system.
So now, I'm looking for a decent sized Sony DSLR, with comparable features to the 550D and nice comfortable ergonomics. The A33/A55 are tiny and uncomfortable, so out of the question. The A560 and A580 look to be great as far as price, and look to be a bit more comfortable but I haven't had a chance to use one yet.
I really think I would prefer a traditional Optical viewfinderm, and i'm a little confused about what the viewfinder on the A560/580 really is, just a small liveview screen? Maybe that wouldn't be much of an issue, but I dont like the idea. REading a bit more, both? Well that was one of the major knocks on it for me, so if that is the case its good news.
Also, there are no manual controls for video on the A580, and no AF during video. Neither of which are really deal-breakers, but it is disappointing.
But I get in-body IS and improved noise performance, dynamic range and bit depth. Along with a variety of other less important features like higher shooting rate and flip out screen, that would be nice to have but not at all a requirement.
So please, someone, tell me why I'm being an idiot here.
You have been reading up on cameras and lens for quite some time now, so it all makes sense
If you know what lens you will be using the camera body looks perfectly fine. Most likely you will be getting brand new one? I think the 580 has regular optical viewfinder.
I had the chance to shoot with A55 probably an year ago and it had that digital viewfinder and it felt really good at that time ( a little strange but in a good way) you can actually see if it gets darker.
Loved the 15 AF points and because back then I was shooting with olypmpus I can't really tell if it was fast or not.
Considering you are not going to have any problems selling your old equipment I don't see why not go for it
Quantaray 24mm - already have
Sony 35mm 1.8
Minolta 50mm 1.7 - already have, upgrade to the 1.4 later maybe, i've seen these(the 1.4) go for silly prices when bundled with some other stuff, like under $200.
Then its picking between:
Sony 85mm 2.8
Vivitar 100mm 3.5 macro
or
Tamron 90mm 2.8, which is about the same cost as the above two, and a better macro lens than the 100mm, but a worse portrait/general purpose tele than the 85mm.... So, just need to decide if I'm willing to live with the slower AF on the 90mm, as it looks like a pretty nice lens. The small size and weight of the 85mm also looks very attractive, I love small primes like the Canon 50mm, that I can throw in a bag and never worry about.
I'm getting an A100 in a few days that I purchased for cheap off ebay, just to test out some of the MA lenses I sell. So it will be interesting to see how it feels. Basically unless the Sony has some terrible interface or ergonomic problems that make it unusable, the cheaper lenses really look attractive.
On a crop body, an 85 isn´t as important as on a full frame. Get a nice 50 and you´re set, you don´t need the extra compression of an 85. You´re much harder up to find good actual wide angle lenses on a crop than good portrait lenses.
Right exactly, the 85mm on a Sony is essentially a 135mm 2.8, which is the standard for a 135, and a super compact 135 for general short telephoto use sounds like a good thing. I've actually been a little bummed that Canon hasn't came out with an affordable 135mm equiv 2.8 lens for crop, as 135's were part of most people's kits back in the film days. Not that the 85mm 1.8 is super expensive or anything, but it is 2x the cost of the Sony 85/2.
The Canon 85mm 1.8 is one main reasons I'm still thinking of sticking with Canon, as I've read its just about the sharpest lens you could find and it was going to be my next lens purchase. However, the Sony 85mm looks to be about as sharp as the Canon 50mm 1.8, which honestly is as sharp as I will ever need a lens, any extra sharpness can be gained in post.
I've been looking at 18/20mm primes for the wide end as well, but I'll probably just get a 10-20mm-ish zoom eventually for interiors and whatnot that I would need a lens that wide for. I think a 24mm would be wide enough for the rest. I've gotten by with my 30mm generally being the widest lens I carry other than the 8mm fisheye.
Anyway, I feel very comfortable about the lens aspect, even though there are quite a few less lenses for Sony, there is still a decent selection, and many of the 3rd party lenses(sigma 20/24mm 1.8, sigma, tamron 90mm macro, sigma 85mm 1.4, etc) that I would consider for Canon, before I would consider L lenses, are available and often a little cheaper for Sony.
So what I would really love to hear, is just if anyone has any personally experience withe Sony body's, and generally how they handle.
I have the A55, so i can only give my impressions of that and so far it's been great, haven't had that much time to go out with it sadly. Weather here hasn't helped either.
Firstly this thing is tiny compared to other DSLR's, so if you you have bigger than average mits then you might be better with the larger non SLT bodies like the A580. Better of trying one in a shop if you can.
One good point is that the camera is also a lot lighter and you won't feel encumbered when carrying it around. Another artificial point is you get that less nerdy look as you mentioned earlier in the thread as the camera looks more like a larger compact camera, unless you have a big Telephoto zoom lens on the end of it.
Which brings me to another point of having such a small camera with a huge Telephoto lens. Some have reported the seals not being to take the weight of such big lens. Probably due to not supporting the lens, so just a point to look into if you use these Telephoto lenses.
I think the other big issue is SLT versus SLR. Some argue your not seeing a true representation in the Viewfinder, why this may be slightly true, i haven't experienced any photos that looked any different than i saw in the Viewfinder.
The A55 has a twisting/tilting LCD screen which is a godsend when you try to take a low angled shot that require you to perform some gymnastic move to balance body on your foot, or by laying down.
The menus/settings are all clearly layed out and most features have a one button on/off switch so you don't need to go digging around in the menus for some option you want to turn on/off.
Imho, SLT pro's outweigh most of the con's that people associate with the SLT technology, things like no need for MLU and super fast continuous shooting are great.
SLT bodies do drain there batteries much more quickly than SLR's as you can imagine with the digital viewfinder and LCD screen/Line View. Unless you going shooting non-stop all day, i wouldn't be too concerned. This haven't bothered me and theres also a nice feature that turns the viewfinder off, until you put your eye up to the viewfinder.
Onto the lenses, i still only have the standard zoom lens which came with the camera (18 - 55 SAM), again I'm no expert, but the lens is great considering it just a kit lens, many of the reviews also praise it for being what it is.
It is subject to a bit of lens flare, but the sharpness and and noise are very well acceptable for what it is. Haven t experienced any CA either.
I do plan on getting the 35mm F1.8 SAM, which has been praised a lot for it's price to quality, i know a lot over on DPR and Dyxum use it over the 1.4 on full-frame bodies.
The CZ 16-60 F3.5-4.6 SAM was another lens that i was planning to purchase myself, another lens thats highly praised for APS-C bodies, being CZ, it's supposed to be some of the best glass you can get for the APS-C sony bodies. The maximum aperture is not really wide enough for me personally, but i suppose it's flexibility over some nice Bokeh and DOF.
I was still contemplating getting 3 primes instead of the CZ 16-20. The 35mm F1.8, 50mm F1.8 and the 85mm F2.8. Covers nearly the range of the CZ 16-80, but with obvious better IQ of the prime lenses.
The 85mm F2.8 is another lens i know people are using on full-frame over the expensive CZ 85 F1.4.
As you probably know all the lenses essentially come with image stabilization thanks to Sony's inbuilt Steadyshot.
Like you mentioned earlier in the thread, you have access to all those Minolta lenses that are floating around on Ebay.
The Sigma 8-16mm, the full-frame of the popular 12-24mm equivilent was one of the wide angle lens that i was looking at before the the news of the incompatibility with A55 came, which i think has been sorted on all new lenses. This looks like a great alternative to the usually comparable Tamaron 10-24mm or the Tokina 11-16mm.
The Minolta 50mm 1.7 seems to be one of the best bargains you can get for price/quality.
Most of the CZ lens are all supposed to be excellent, although most are for full-frame and require many $$$. Im sure they all will work with the APS-C bodies, but theres a price to pay what what some describe as the best quality. Maybe it's worth investing in your gonna stick with the Sony brand.
I believe Sony will be ditching the traditional SLR technology and investing more in the SLT technology and the A900 full-frame body replacement will be SLT, so if the SLT technology isn't your 'thing' then i guess looking at these lenses will not be that worthwhile, price wise.
I will try to think of anything else I've missed or if you have any more questions i would be glad to help.
Thanks a lot Ark, yeah honestly the SLT thing doesn't scare me off too much, its the tiny uncomfortable grip of the A55. I'm trying to find an A560/A580 locally in a store here but having no luck atm. Looks like the super popularity of the A55 is keeping retailers from stocking the SLR designs.
If I go Sony and am forced to upgrade to a SLT in the future that isn't a big deal, hell, I could just sell everything and go back to Canon anyway. =P
I will likely pass on any CZ lenses, just as I would pass on Canon L glass, to me, just way too much to pay for marginal improvements. Sure I would rather have a 1.4 85, but at 6x the price, I just don't see the point. If i was making money as a photographer it would be different though, but just for hobby stuff, the pro-level 1st party lenses aren't worth it.
I will look over your links.
As for specific Qs:
How do you feel about the general controls, setting ISO, aperture, setting aperture in Manual? Do you hold down a little button to adjust aperture like on a Canon XXXD when in manual?
How good is the in-body IS? I'm really looking forward to this, even if its just 1-2 stop improvement, that would be huge.
What is your opinion on the video mode, I was really looking forward to the manual controls, and 720p/60FPS of the T2i...
I'm sure i'll think of more later.
[edit] Just looking at raw/jpeg from the A580, man iso 3200, 6400 and 12800 are all usable from jpeg for web resolution, sure the NR is a bit heavy but it still retains a huge amount of detail.... I'm sure the T2i is pretty similar, but this just looks awesome. 2x the pixels with like 3-4 stops improvement in noise over my current dSLR.
I think this specific A55 is well layed out, on the back you have one button controls for adjusting White Balance, ISO, Display/Live View, Focus Mode, Metering, Movie mode etc.. The Aperture and Shutter Speed and E/V can be adjusted by a combination of a scroll wheel, located conveniently under the shutter release button and the scroll wheel in combination with a button located on the top of the body. Very easy once you get used to it.
The in-body IS i would say is good enough for long exposures, obviously it's gonna be a lot poorer on longer exposures and the chance increases the longer the exposure, but most of my shots have been good, albeit i haven't really relied to much on this system as the A55 is quite light and you can probably hold it steady enough with one hand without straining to keep it stable. The camera does alert you through the VF/LCD when it is working and how much shake the camera is compensating for.
The video mode i haven't used all that much tbh, maybe a couple of times in program mode i think some of the manual controls are fixed, so once you have started recording you cant change things like the aperture/shutter speed. The movie mode is one of the big features of this camera tho, being able to record at 60FPS and all, so i doub't it's gonna be subpar. I have heard tales of the AF motor being audible in recordings so it may worth looking into an external recorder and the price cost if this is a feature your gonna use alot.
SSS is wonderful, even if this camera has a little higher noise than my 350D, SSS lets me take shots at much slower shutter speeds and thus lower ISO. Yayayayay. Inbody IS, its really shocking that Canon/Nikon have not gotten onto this bandwagon yet, its one of the few features you can add to a camera that will actually make better photos.
Old-ass sigma/quantaray lenses are compatable, yay! You'll get an "error 99" if you try to use them on Canon.
Anyone looking for a dirt-cheap 35mm equiv for your sony dslr, get yourself a Simga/Quantaray 24mm 2.8. Preferable one that looks like this, as it will be cheap as hell!
Very sharp, about as loud as Minolta 50mm 1.7, maybe a little louder. Seems most MA mount lenses that use the in-body motor are relatively loud, that is one thing I will miss from Canon. But for the price, you can't go wrong, you can find these well under $100 on ebay. Even at $100-150, this is a good buy.
Theres a few of those Sigma 24mm 2.8 going on ebay here for around £75, trouble is that some of the old Sigma lenses aren't compatible with the SLT bodies.
I have been looking at the Minolta 50mm 1.7 though, just need to compare how well it faces up against the Sony 50mm 1.8 and if the extra cost on the Sony version is worth it.
I doubt the Sony is much better optically, and likely much poorer build quality. The minolta 50/1.7 actually has excellent build quality, feels much nicer than the Canon 50/1.8 II(which i would imagine is similar to the Sony's plastic build). If the Sony has quieter AF, that would be a big plus.
Some of the Minolta 50/1.7 are 20 years old, which is something to consider, but also a testament to their build quality. I've had/sold a handful of them and all were in good working condition. Older maxxum lenses generally have a "whitening" on the rubber of the grips, do not be scared off by this, a toothbrush + some ArmorAll(or whatever equivalent product you have in the UK, used for cleaning leather/car interiors) works very well to bring it back to new. Often times you'll find a particularly nasty looking Maxxum lens that just needs a good exterior cleaning, then looks mint, but will likely sell for less on eBay.
Look in "film photography" on ebay, you can sometimes find a Minolta 50mm 1.7 attached to a Maxxum 7000 or other Minolta film camera, for 25-50% less than what the lens itself sells for, plus free film camera. =P Just type "Maxxum" into the search in the film photography section, and browse until you find a 7000 + lens, shouldn't take long.
This is a pretty good method for finding good deals on:
Sigma/Quantaray 24mm 2.8
Minolta 24mm 2.8
Minolta 28mm 2.8
Minolta 50mm 1.7
Minolta 50mm 1.4
(primes)
All of which are pretty popular on the used market. Often times you'll find lots with 2-4 of the above lenses. The more expensive primes like the 35mm 2.0 and the 135mm 2.8 are harder to find in lots like this though.
PS: As far as the Sig/Quant 24mm 2.8, I have 3 of them (1 sig, 2 quant) and they all work on my A100, however, I've got an older sigma 60-200mm that does NOT work on my A100, so there is a cutoff somewhere likely of how old these lenses work. The quantaray's may be a better bet, as they are generally re-branded older sigma lenses, which means they could be an older design but with a newer chipset.
However, I'm not familiar with the A33/A55 SLT bodies and how compatible older 3rd party lenses are. If you find one for a decent price I would go for it, or look for a Minolta 28mm 2.8 instead, which you might find for ~$200, still a good price.
Double PS: I just ordered the Sony 35mm 1.8 SAM, I will give you an update on the build quality and focus noise vs the older minolta primes, as the 35/50 have a very similar build and same focus system.
Oh and, moreso than the 50/1.7, for near the same cost or a little more of the new Sony 50/1.8, you might be able to pick up a Minolta 50/1.4, at which point there is no comparison. These sell anywhere from $150-300.
I have a question for you, EQ. I'm really wanting to get into close-up/macro photography. The problem is, I don't think I have the means to get a dedicated Macro Lens. Would tube extenders/close-up filters, or even a nice telephoto lens be a worthy compensation? I wouldn't mind a telephoto, since I would be using it for nature/animal photography as well.
Well, if you want AF macro tubes, you're better off buying a cheap dedicated lens. Depending on what camera you have, some options are:
vivitar/pheonix/etc 100mm 3.5, this same lens is rebranded by a few different companies, can be had for $75-150. Try to find one with the 1:1 adaptor
sigma/quantaray 50mm 2.8, can be had for less than $150 for oldr versions, may not be compatable with canon
sigma 70mm 2.8, $3-400, really nice, cheaper than similar 1st party macro lenses but excellent lens
tamron 90mm 2.8, similar to above, but 90mm
The tamron 90 would be a good choice to double as a general purpose prime tele, if you get a tele zoom with "macro" it is generally not really what most would consider macro, but 1:4 or less, which isnt bad but depends on how close you really want to get.
What camera and what other lenses do you have?
getting some manual focus macro rings, an adaptor(m42, om, nikon), and an older manual focus macro lens is an option, but i would opt for the 100mm/3.5 at that point.
Would you guys recommend the Fuji x100 for a beginner? I'm in the hunt for a suitable camera for a friend of mine and she's given me a budget with some wishes; something fancy, not a compact, something to grow in.
At first I was thinking along regular entry-level dslr(canon due to previous mentioned arguments, thanks EQ and others).
Now the fuji is just outside her budget but she might budge. I think she might have more fun with the fuji and learn better/faster than a canon with a kit lens?
Why not a canon with a prime you might ask? Well I believe if it's something she'll disapprove with the fuji it would be the lack of zoom.
I would get her an entry level dslr, or the better m4/3 cameras. That way she has the flexibility to try out different focal lengths, cause the x100 is stuck at 35mm.
Congrats on the new toy EQ Show us some images now
@ qlz I think Entity's suggestion is great.
I also have a question : I am going on vacation at the end of the month and I am bringing my camera with me. The problem is that I am going camping on the beach. The heat is crazy there and even if I leave the camera in the tent it will still be pretty hot. How would you guys handle that. Also all of the 5d classics tend to have that problem with the glue on the mirror fading off so I dont really want to risk that.
Really not sure what to do here -- I might just bring my older camera with me and whatever happens
When going from a cold to hot area, I was advised to seal my camera in a plastic bag with some silca gels and remove the batteries to allow the equipment to acclimatise.
Other than that would about a coolbag thats normally used for storing drinks and such?
Would you guys recommend the Fuji x100 for a beginner? I'm in the hunt for a suitable camera for a friend of mine and she's given me a budget with some wishes; something fancy, not a compact, something to grow in.
At first I was thinking along regular entry-level dslr(canon due to previous mentioned arguments, thanks EQ and others).
Now the fuji is just outside her budget but she might budge. I think she might have more fun with the fuji and learn better/faster than a canon with a kit lens?
Why not a canon with a prime you might ask? Well I believe if it's something she'll disapprove with the fuji it would be the lack of zoom.
The X100 would be a great camera for this. Plenty of people started with fixed lens cameras back in the film days. 35mm is very versatile, and forces you to think, rather than zoomy zoom zoom all the time with no thought to composition.
I think it'd be a great idea. It would certainly give better image quality than a cheap dslr with kit lens.
Let her look around my X100 year blog, I've been shooting only with the X100 for 4 months now, and it should give her a good idea of the range of images you can get with it. http://myx100year.blogspot.com
Good idea Ark. That should work if I dot come up with better idea. I just wonder if that cooler bag will be much cooler with no ice in it
What Ben is suggesting is also very good idea. Somebody perhaps him suggested this when I was starting and it gave me such a boost to start using fixed lens. It can not compare with anything else i have done to improve my photography It just forces you to think and move with your legs in order to find better frame.
Working with one lens is great, but the x100 might not be the best camera for a beginner because a) fixed 35mm lens and b) price. A cheaper entry level dslr + prime would be much more versatile, as she can change focal lengths if something wider/longer is needed.
yeaaa it is not in civilized area and there is no power there meaning no place where i can freeze it But it is great idea. I will think what i can do about that.
@ calabi I dont know anything about that camera nor any 3d cameras but it kind of expensive
Working with one lens is great, but the x100 might not be the best camera for a beginner because a) fixed 35mm lens and b) price. A cheaper entry level dslr + prime would be much more versatile, as she can change focal lengths if something wider/longer is needed.
I agree, I really wouldn't suggest an X100 for a beginner, now for someone like Ben, who's main requirement for a camera is that it has a 35mm 2.0 or faster lens, then its a perfect choice. =P
But for someone just starting out, I really wouldn't want to limit them to just a single focal range, esp at the $1200+ price point, its too much of a niche camera. Playing around with a 24/2.8 ~35mm here, this personally would be too wide of a lens, with much too wide depth of field for me to choice as my only lens, I would much prefer a ~50mm. With no possibility of a 75-85mm-ish portrait lens? No thanks.
But yeah, a Nex 5, an Olympus EP-1 with Panasonic 20mm 1.7, a Canon 500D/550D, a Sony A33,A55,A560,A580, those would be my suggestions. Take her to best buy and let her try them out and see how they all feel.
And before I get hate for suggesting an M4/3, Oly/Panasonic simply have a better lens selection than the Nex at this point, the Nex is probably the better system to invest in though, with the much better sensor etc. However, with Sony rumored to be coming out with a ~35mm/2 and ~60mm/2 lenses in 2011, it wouldn't be a bad bet. The ~24mm pancake always seemed like a very odd lens choice.
In other news, I did the math, and by getting a moderate selection of SA lenses:
Quant 24mm
Sony 35mm 1.8
Minolta 50mm 1.7
Minolta 100-200mm 4.5
I can afford to buy a used A560! So i did! Weeee, should be here on thursday. I'll get the 85mm/2.8 and likely the Minolta 50mm 1.4 a bit later, maybe replace the 8mm 3.5 fisheye in time but i didn't use it much so no rush.
I agree, I really wouldn't suggest an X100 for a beginner, now for someone like Ben, who's main requirement for a camera is that it has a 35mm 2.0 or faster lens, then its a perfect choice. =P
But for someone just starting out, I really wouldn't want to limit them to just a single focal range, esp at the $1200+ price point, its too much of a niche camera. Playing around with a 24/2.8 ~35mm here, this personally would be too wide of a lens, with much too wide depth of field for me to choice as my only lens, I would much prefer a ~50mm. With no possibility of a 75-85mm-ish portrait lens? No thanks.
But yeah, a Nex 5, an Olympus EP-1 with Panasonic 20mm 1.7, a Canon 500D/550D, a Sony A33,A55,A560,A580, those would be my suggestions. Take her to best buy and let her try them out and see how they all feel.
And before I get hate for suggesting an M4/3, Oly/Panasonic simply have a better lens selection than the Nex at this point, the Nex is probably the better system to invest in though, with the much better sensor etc. However, with Sony rumored to be coming out with a ~35mm/2 and ~60mm/2 lenses in 2011, it wouldn't be a bad bet. The ~24mm pancake always seemed like a very odd lens choice.
In other news, I did the math, and by getting a moderate selection of SA lenses:
Quant 24mm
Sony 35mm 1.8
Minolta 50mm 1.7
Minolta 100-200mm 4.5
I can afford to buy a used A560! So i did! Weeee, should be here on thursday. I'll get the 85mm/2.8 and likely the Minolta 50mm 1.4 a bit later, maybe replace the 8mm 3.5 fisheye in time but i didn't use it much so no rush.
Different people want different things out of photography. For example you're changing gear like the Fonz changed girlfriends. Nothing wrong with that, photography is up to the individual to determine how they will enjoy it. But, as a general rule, most women get "into gear" less, and prefer the act of taking photographs more, and as a "learn the settings in a few days, then forget about it and get on with taking photos" the X100 is a great camera. It's invisible, much quicker than a dslr with 100 buttons and the option/temptation to switch lenses.
If you can find a shop with one, try letting her handle it and look through the gorgeous viewfinder. She might find the manual controls, small size, and limitation of one lens is appealing. Then again, she might look at a dslr and enjoy that experience more. I just want to re assert my advice that I think having a limited lens choice is a good thing for a beginner. She certainly won't be able to approach the image quality, with video and macro abilities, for the same price point.
Different people want different things out of photography. For example you're changing gear like the Fonz changed girlfriends. Nothing wrong with that, photography is up to the individual to determine how they will enjoy it. But, as a general rule, most women get "into gear" less, and prefer the act of taking photographs more, and as a "learn the settings in a few days, then forget about it and get on with taking photos" the X100 is a great camera. It's invisible, much quicker than a dslr with 100 buttons and the option/temptation to switch lenses.
If you can find a shop with one, try letting her handle it and look through the gorgeous viewfinder. She might find the manual controls, small size, and limitation of one lens is appealing. Then again, she might look at a dslr and enjoy that experience more. I just want to re assert my advice that I think having a limited lens choice is a good thing for a beginner. She certainly won't be able to approach the image quality, with video and macro abilities, for the same price point.
Yeah certainly, it all depends on how deep she wants to go into it, if she wants a relatively simple camera with great IQ and isn't interested in carrying multiple lenses then it would be a great choice.
I also agree on starting with just a good lens, IMO it should be a 50mm, not 35mm, but that is just personal preference. But at the same time, I wouldn't personally want to have absolutely no choice to switch it up at some point. An Oly/Pana with the 20mm 1.7 would accomplish the same goal, but leave it open ended for further lens experimentation.
I also think the need for the X100's superb IQ is overstated a bit, at-least for a beginner. Sure its very cool that the sensor is specifically tailored to the lens, and the samples i've seen are very very good. However it is really questionable how much this is going to matter to a beginner. The difference between a Nex, a DSLR, or an X100 compared to whatever P&S camera she is currently using, I really doubt she would care/notice it.
Its like comparing a Canon 50mm 1.8 to the 1.4, when you've been using a shity slow zoom lens on a cheap P&S, certainly the 1.4 is a little better lens, but in the grand scheme, both are huge improvements.
To me recommending an X100 is akin to recommending a Leica to a beginner, I just don't see the point in it. Its a Niche luxury camera. However I have not personally used it, and maybe I would change my tune if i had.
something fancy, not a compact, something to grow in.
To me this says DSLR/Nex/M4/3.
Now the fuji is just outside her budget but she might budge. I think she might have more fun with the fuji and learn better/faster than a canon with a kit lens?
Why not a canon with a prime you might ask? Well I believe if it's something she'll disapprove with the fuji it would be the lack of zoom.
Well, kit zoom + one nice fast prime, like the Canon EF 35mm 2.0, Sony 35mm 1.8, you can pick up a new Canon/Sony body with kit lens + decent prime for less than the cost of an X100.
Calabi: A sort of disturbing trend I've seen with the M4/3's is that each new version strips away more and more features and comes closer to P&S style operation, removing actual buttons and dials in favor of menu options. I'm not sure if this is the case with the GF1/GF2, but it would be worth looking into.
If you're looking at the GF*, you should also take a look at the Sony Nex 5, and variety of Olympus m4/3 bodies(which can use Panasonic lenses).
Thanks for all your thoughts! Certainly helped me sort out and highlight pros&cons.
As Ben said she seems reluctant to carry around several lenses at the moment when we discussed it but wants to learn settings/photography and that's why I came to think of it. Also because I find the viewfinder nifty which was my biggest problem in the beginning when composing pictures. Entry level dslr viewfinders are so small/dark.
But then again as EQ mentions it's pricy as well as limiting if she suddenly realize she want some other optic.
The backup/alternative I've been looking at is a Canon 550/600. Most likely with a kit lens because of the aforementioned reason(Zoom=flexible but slow).
Replies
What i really don't know is if that Expeed 2 sensor + a few upgrades are worth 400 euros more for the dual pack with AF-S VR lenses (18-55 & 55-200mm).
What do you think?
Go a couple pages back, unless you want to stick with the cheap/shitty kit lenses and overpriced fast zooms available for them, STAY AWAY from low end Nikon bodies, period! You wont be able to use many of Nikons best and most affordable fast, sharp prime lenses.
Spend your money on glass, not fancy new features and more megapixels or whatever the 5100 offers. With low end Nikon bodies, its hard to invest in glass, as the selection is so limited.
A 5 year old Nikon D80 + Nikon 85mm 1.8, Nikon 28mm 2.8 or any other of the wide variety of lenses you can not use on a D5100 is going to take better pictures than even the newest and fanciest low end "crippled" Nikon body.
A D80 + 28mm 2.8 + 50mm 1.8 + 85mm 1.8 used is going to run like $1000 all together... A D5100 + 18-55mm + 55-200mm will cost like $1200 or something? The older D80 kit will own it as far as the pictures you take, and will only lack a bit in megapixels, noise performance, and features you don't really need like video.
Nikon fail etc.
1. If you want the best lens selection, go Canon. Nikon is equivalent but only with mid-range bodies and higher, anything low-end is severely limited.
2. If you insist on Nikon but want the best image quality, suck it up and get a mid-range body that works with all Nikon lenses, even if you need to buy an older used body to afford it. Getting the latest and cheapest Nikon dSLR because you want the best image quality is an oxymoron.
3. If you want a low end, affordable body with all the latest features, high quality LCD screen, high resolution, good ISO up to 6400, video, etc. Get a Canon T2i, because you can use the full assortment of Canon lenses, this makes a much better choice over competing Nikon(or anyone else)'s bodies, because of the lenses. Even if the T2i is $200 more than that Nikon you're looking at, its actually more affordable when you realize what you have to pay to get a good lens on a low end Nikon body, or realize you need to upgrade to a $1500 Nikon just to be able to use some primes.
4. If you want the latest camera with the latest features and will never use anything but cheap kit lenses, just go to the store and buy whatever feels best in your hands, seriously, these cameras in the same class have so few real differences it just isn't worth discussing. Anyone who tells you the D5100 is going to give you better image quality in real life situations than a T2i is smoking crack.
5. If you want to build a budget system that gives you great photos, get the cheapest body you can find and put the money into lenses. You can get a Canon 20D or a Nikon 70D for like $225, get a 50mm 1.8 lens, plus a 28mm 1.8/35mm 1.8/2.0(canon) to go with it, generally all for less than the cost of even the cheapest dslr kit new in a store. These bodies offer superior build quality and ergonomics over new fancy features that most people dont need. $1-200 extra for a Canon 40D or Nikon D80.
6. "But XXX brand new cheap camera kit does better high iso!!!" Its moot, if you end up using the cheap kit zoom, you'll be at f5.6-f8.0 to get optimal sharpness, a 50mm 1.8 is going to be as sharp as that lens at its best, when the 50mm is at like 2.0 or 2.2, we're talking a 3-4 stop gain here, which makes any high ISO improvements moot. If you shoot at 800 on you 20D with a 50mm 1.8 lens, you would have to shoot at ISO 6400 on a D5100 + kit lens.
Getting cheap sharp and fast primes on a fancy low end body is also a good idea. Best of both worlds etc, but again only if the lens selection is good.
Uhhh yeah, i'll take suggestions for more of these common situations that can be summed up in a few sentences or less. =P
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/a-leica-year.html (I know it doesn't follow his advice to the T, but doesn't have to be B&W, nor film, nor leica, the real part of the learning is the one lens one year portion). I'm doing it right now. One year, only 35mm.
The thing is that i have the new d5100 + 18-55mm + 55-200mm for 1000 euro, and the same kit of lenses with the nikon d5000= 599 euro. I saw that.. and i thought, "that may be a good deal". But knowing that canon has a wider and better range of lenses it makes me to doubt about buying a cheaper nikon
So, in the Canon side, i have as options the 550D, the 600D and the 60D, but all those much more expensive. The 550 with 18-55 lense is around 650 euros.
The canon lense 55-250 is any good?, i could get a 60d with 18-55 and 55-250 for 1100 euros. There are some other options, much cheaper, like the one with the lense of 18-135mm f/2.8, is that a better option? i could get with it another lense of 50mm f1.8 or a 35mm f2.0.
I have no idea in what situation you can get away with slower lens and this 50mm 1.8 for canon or nikon is the cheapest lens you can get any way so...
Those are all just personal preference
IMO a 50 euro price difference between the D5000 and the 550D is meaningless, you pay a pittance more for the ability and freedom to use any canon EF lens ever made. So even if you don't think you'll want the 135mm 2.8 macro today, you might change your mind in a couple years. Remember that you're buying into a system, and think about the long term here.
[note] prices from here on in USD, for used prime lenses, may vary elsewhere
If you start shooting with primes, you will want at minimum a 50mm 1.8, and a 28mm 2.8, because these are both really good general purpose lenses under $200. You can't use the Nikon 28mm 2.8 on a D5000 however. A canon 550D + 50mm 1.8 + 28mm 2.8 is an excellent starter kit.
If we look at primes that someone is likely to buy for a system, we come to:
24mm 2.8 $300 ~ 38mm
28mm 2.8 $175 ~ 45mm
28mm 1.8 $400 ~ 45mm
30mm 1.4 $400 ~ 48mm Sigma, Cost New, these have focusing issues and should be serviced, free with a new lens! You'll have to pay with a used one.
35mm 2.0 $225 ~ 56mm
50mm 1.8 $125 ~ 80mm Cost new
50mm 1.4 $350 ~ 80mm
85mm 1.8 $325 ~ 136mm
100mm 2.0 $325 ~ 160mm
Now, you dont need to buy all of these lenses, but if start to get serious with photography, you'll want 2-3 of them. If you look at what sort of zoom lens you need to buy to get similar perforate, any reasonable combination of these lenses is going to save you a lot of money, or offer much superior photograph taking ability, whatever way you want to look at it.
When we look at low end Nikons you can only get
30mm 1.4 ~ 45mm Sigma again
35mm 1.8 ~ 52mm
50mm 1.8 ~ 75mm
50mm 1.4 ~ 75mm
You can get away with just the 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 on a low end Canon, sure, for a while atleast. However, I wouldn't want to be limited to these two, as it just isnt enough. 24mm, 28mm and 85mm lenses to me are essential from a camera system standpoint.
Now another thing to consider, you keep talking about the 55-200/55-250mm lenses, these could run you $2-300, and you very likely do not even need this lens. The canon 55-250mm IS is ~ 88-400mm, you really just do not this much range unless you have super ultra specific purpose for it, like being a creepy guy in the bushes at the local school, or taking bird photos or something. Really with this lens, you'll be hard pressed to use it in anything but the best outdoor lighting conditions. So when we start to really consider things, that you're thinking about spending $2-300 extra for a lens that will be of barely any use, spending 2-300 on a high quality, sharp and fast prime lens that you will be able to use in virtually any situation makes a lot more sense.
When we get into primes, most people can live with just two or three. Here are some potential combos:
A.
28mm 2.8 $175
50mm 1.8 $125
- $300 this covers basically a "normal"(~50mm) range and a portrait type(~80mm) range, this is the cheapest prime kit I would recommend, and what I started out with.
B.
35mm 2.8 $225
50mm 1.8 $125
85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0 $325
- $675, this is a kit geared towards someone more interested in the long range than the wide, with normal(~50mm), portrait(~80mm) and short-medium telephoto(~136mm or ~160mm), but you get it all at the fast speed of 2.0 or better! again this is going to be a 3-4 stop improvement over any zoom lens this side of $500, and you'll likely pay $1000-2000 to get a zoom lens to replace these primes.
C
24mm 2.8 $300
35mm 2.0 $225
50mm 1.8 $125
- $650, this covers the classic ranges, wide(~35mm) normal(~50mm) and portrait(~80mm)
Now, if we think that you're considering spending $300 on a telephoto lens you probably do no need, the price for these kits drops to:
A. same cost
B. $375
C. $350
To me this is a no brainer, and not at all unaffordable. You can buy them one at a time if its too much to spend all at once, or buy them when you feel you need to go wider/longer. If you can get a 55-200/250mm lens, for around $100 or less go for it, any more is not worth it unless you really know exactly how you're going to use it and what its for. I've got cheap 80-200mm lens that I paid like $30(got it with some other crap) for, which is about what it is worth to me considering how much I actually use it(almost never).
Oh another note, a 85mm/100mm lens + even a cheap 2x teleconverter is going to give you better speed, and likely better/equivalent image quality than a low range telephoto zoom. I recently got some off brand 2x with some other stuff, and used with my cheap 100mm lens, I get quite surprisingly acceptable results!
Put a 2x tele on a Canon 100mm 2.0 and you'll end up with a 200mm 2.8 lens, even if the result is a little soft from the 2x, this will give you better pictures than any low range tele zoom.
One last note, we can get a Nice T2i body, and 3 prime lenses, all for less than the cost or about the same cost of a Canon 60D or Nikon D90 kit. Not at all an expensive proposition when you think about it that way.
Now watch, someone will tell me the 85mm 1.8 sells for $800 in Spain. =P Well, this advice is good for anyone in the US at the very least. Looking at ebay Spain you can pick one up for 350 euro new, so if you can find a used one for 250-275 euro, that is probably decent.
Yeah that's all I have to hear, I'm only interested in the Sigma 10-20. Been looking on ebay and other forums to see if anybody has one used.
For a budget flash I picked up a Yongnuo 560 and it's seems to be pretty nice build quality for $60. Also the body of it is almost identical to the 580ex so the 580ex diffuser fits perfectly on it. Picked up Eneloop rechargeable AA's for it, my girlfriend loves them and recommends them highly.
Edit: Also do you guys have any opinion on the Sony A850? My roommates daddy and mommy just bought one for him.
Judging by the pics, it happened right after I let my friend try the lens on his D3000. It didn't work, gave some error code on the D3000, so I put it back on mine and kept snapping for two weeks, only to notice half my pictures totally failed.. There's a few 50mm shots between them and they look super-nice compared to the 24mm shots, so it's not the camera...
I'm thinking the autofocus on that lens might have gone bust or something when we put it on the D3000 ?
I'm not sure why it would start miss-behaving after being used on the D3000, but it certainly is possible that some of the electronics got messed up. Hey, just another reason to stay away from those low end Nikon bodies, not only do most lenses not work on them, but if you try one, you might break it! =P
Even if your lens isn't under warranty, you should contact Sigma to get a quote on a focus calibration, I can't imagine it will cost much.
One thing I notice on my 30mm, is that it will sometimes allow you to take a photo too quickly, ie: before it has properly finished focusing. For this reason I tend to shoot a lot of multiples, or just wait half a second or so before taking the shot when using the 30mm. I think it has to do with the Full time manual focusing, IE: you can take a shot anytime even if correct focus isnt achieved. So I would do some tests, focus wait a second to make sure you have proper focus, then see how the results look.
Its possible it has been front/back focusing the entire time you've had it, and you're just noticing it now. It would be much more apparent close up, at low apertures, than say, 10 feet at f4 or something. So do some tests wide open at the closest you can focus.
Now if it is a smear or irregular blurring, that sounds more likely to be some sort of lens defect. It could be some fingerprints/smudges on the front or rear element, it could be some fungus growing internally if you live in a very humid/hot area without air conditioning. I would shine a flashlight through the lens and see if there is anything nasty in there. The exterior of the glass is easy enough to clean, if its fungus you'll need to get it repaired, which could cost $1-200 and you might be better off buying a new lens instead.
Now, if its sort of, blurring on just one side of the image, there could be some serious mechanical damage, ie: a lens element has been knock around and is no longer properly centered. This would probably be pretty unlikely. As you would likely notice the sort of blunt force damage that would be required for this to happen.
Here's a before and an after pic, the after is a very clear example. Both 100% crops, same lens and body.
Kinda bummed about it, I was never very happy with it, general colors, sharpness vividness of the images was behind the 50mm Prime at all times, but this makes the thing worth less when selling. I should've just gotten a DX 35mm prime instead
Being slightly out of focus could cause this, but i'm not sure thats your only problem here.
The lens otherwise seems to function correctly, no errors or weird noises or anything like that?
I called Sigma, they said to take it to a Photo shop, no point really calling them.
Sigma/Quantaray 24mm 2.8 - which will not work on canon DSLRs- dirt cheap used
Minolta 28mm 2.8 - dirt cheap used
Sony 35mm 1.8 - cheap brand new, could replace my sigma 30mm 1.4
Minolta 50mm 1.7 - dirt cheap used
Minolta 50mm 1.4 - $250ish used
Sony 85mm 2.8 - Cheapish new, but disappointingly slow. Sony doesn't offer a 85mm F2ish lens, which is a disappointing, Canon has the 85mm 1.8 and 1.2, offering a reasonable choice on a budget but still very good lens in the 1.8. Sony has the 85mm 2.8, Minolta 85mm 1.4 and CZ 85mm 1.4. Two expensive 1.4's and no 1.8 or 1.2.
However, I could sell my 30mm 1.4, and basically afford the 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 2.8, so that is extremely tempting. 2.8 isn't that bad when its essentially a 135mm lens on a crop sensor. The 50mm 1.8/1.4 at 75mm on a crop is close enough to a traditional 85mm 1.8 lens for portrait work. And the bokeh you can get from a 135mm lens, even at 2.8, would likely suffice for close up portraits.
I have a Vivitar 100mm 3.5 macro, and a Samyang 8mm fisheye, that I could easily sell and replace for about the same cost in the A mount.
I have a vintage Canon 70-210mm F4 that I just got and love, but could replace with the Minolta 70-210mm F4 beercan.
So, I'm thinking I could save hundreds, maybe thousands over the life of my camera system just going with the cheaper lenses that are available for the A mount system.
So now, I'm looking for a decent sized Sony DSLR, with comparable features to the 550D and nice comfortable ergonomics. The A33/A55 are tiny and uncomfortable, so out of the question. The A560 and A580 look to be great as far as price, and look to be a bit more comfortable but I haven't had a chance to use one yet.
I really think I would prefer a traditional Optical viewfinderm, and i'm a little confused about what the viewfinder on the A560/580 really is, just a small liveview screen? Maybe that wouldn't be much of an issue, but I dont like the idea. REading a bit more, both? Well that was one of the major knocks on it for me, so if that is the case its good news.
Also, there are no manual controls for video on the A580, and no AF during video. Neither of which are really deal-breakers, but it is disappointing.
But I get in-body IS and improved noise performance, dynamic range and bit depth. Along with a variety of other less important features like higher shooting rate and flip out screen, that would be nice to have but not at all a requirement.
So please, someone, tell me why I'm being an idiot here.
If you know what lens you will be using the camera body looks perfectly fine. Most likely you will be getting brand new one? I think the 580 has regular optical viewfinder.
I had the chance to shoot with A55 probably an year ago and it had that digital viewfinder and it felt really good at that time ( a little strange but in a good way) you can actually see if it gets darker.
Loved the 15 AF points and because back then I was shooting with olypmpus I can't really tell if it was fast or not.
Considering you are not going to have any problems selling your old equipment I don't see why not go for it
edit : I would love to try the Minolta 50mm f1.4
Quantaray 24mm - already have
Sony 35mm 1.8
Minolta 50mm 1.7 - already have, upgrade to the 1.4 later maybe, i've seen these(the 1.4) go for silly prices when bundled with some other stuff, like under $200.
Then its picking between:
Sony 85mm 2.8
Vivitar 100mm 3.5 macro
or
Tamron 90mm 2.8, which is about the same cost as the above two, and a better macro lens than the 100mm, but a worse portrait/general purpose tele than the 85mm.... So, just need to decide if I'm willing to live with the slower AF on the 90mm, as it looks like a pretty nice lens. The small size and weight of the 85mm also looks very attractive, I love small primes like the Canon 50mm, that I can throw in a bag and never worry about.
I'm getting an A100 in a few days that I purchased for cheap off ebay, just to test out some of the MA lenses I sell. So it will be interesting to see how it feels. Basically unless the Sony has some terrible interface or ergonomic problems that make it unusable, the cheaper lenses really look attractive.
The Canon 85mm 1.8 is one main reasons I'm still thinking of sticking with Canon, as I've read its just about the sharpest lens you could find and it was going to be my next lens purchase. However, the Sony 85mm looks to be about as sharp as the Canon 50mm 1.8, which honestly is as sharp as I will ever need a lens, any extra sharpness can be gained in post.
I've been looking at 18/20mm primes for the wide end as well, but I'll probably just get a 10-20mm-ish zoom eventually for interiors and whatnot that I would need a lens that wide for. I think a 24mm would be wide enough for the rest. I've gotten by with my 30mm generally being the widest lens I carry other than the 8mm fisheye.
Anyway, I feel very comfortable about the lens aspect, even though there are quite a few less lenses for Sony, there is still a decent selection, and many of the 3rd party lenses(sigma 20/24mm 1.8, sigma, tamron 90mm macro, sigma 85mm 1.4, etc) that I would consider for Canon, before I would consider L lenses, are available and often a little cheaper for Sony.
So what I would really love to hear, is just if anyone has any personally experience withe Sony body's, and generally how they handle.
Firstly this thing is tiny compared to other DSLR's, so if you you have bigger than average mits then you might be better with the larger non SLT bodies like the A580. Better of trying one in a shop if you can.
One good point is that the camera is also a lot lighter and you won't feel encumbered when carrying it around. Another artificial point is you get that less nerdy look as you mentioned earlier in the thread as the camera looks more like a larger compact camera, unless you have a big Telephoto zoom lens on the end of it.
Which brings me to another point of having such a small camera with a huge Telephoto lens. Some have reported the seals not being to take the weight of such big lens. Probably due to not supporting the lens, so just a point to look into if you use these Telephoto lenses.
I think the other big issue is SLT versus SLR. Some argue your not seeing a true representation in the Viewfinder, why this may be slightly true, i haven't experienced any photos that looked any different than i saw in the Viewfinder.
The A55 has a twisting/tilting LCD screen which is a godsend when you try to take a low angled shot that require you to perform some gymnastic move to balance body on your foot, or by laying down.
The menus/settings are all clearly layed out and most features have a one button on/off switch so you don't need to go digging around in the menus for some option you want to turn on/off.
Imho, SLT pro's outweigh most of the con's that people associate with the SLT technology, things like no need for MLU and super fast continuous shooting are great.
SLT bodies do drain there batteries much more quickly than SLR's as you can imagine with the digital viewfinder and LCD screen/Line View. Unless you going shooting non-stop all day, i wouldn't be too concerned. This haven't bothered me and theres also a nice feature that turns the viewfinder off, until you put your eye up to the viewfinder.
Onto the lenses, i still only have the standard zoom lens which came with the camera (18 - 55 SAM), again I'm no expert, but the lens is great considering it just a kit lens, many of the reviews also praise it for being what it is.
It is subject to a bit of lens flare, but the sharpness and and noise are very well acceptable for what it is. Haven t experienced any CA either.
I do plan on getting the 35mm F1.8 SAM, which has been praised a lot for it's price to quality, i know a lot over on DPR and Dyxum use it over the 1.4 on full-frame bodies.
The CZ 16-60 F3.5-4.6 SAM was another lens that i was planning to purchase myself, another lens thats highly praised for APS-C bodies, being CZ, it's supposed to be some of the best glass you can get for the APS-C sony bodies. The maximum aperture is not really wide enough for me personally, but i suppose it's flexibility over some nice Bokeh and DOF.
I was still contemplating getting 3 primes instead of the CZ 16-20. The 35mm F1.8, 50mm F1.8 and the 85mm F2.8. Covers nearly the range of the CZ 16-80, but with obvious better IQ of the prime lenses.
The 85mm F2.8 is another lens i know people are using on full-frame over the expensive CZ 85 F1.4.
As you probably know all the lenses essentially come with image stabilization thanks to Sony's inbuilt Steadyshot.
Like you mentioned earlier in the thread, you have access to all those Minolta lenses that are floating around on Ebay.
The Sigma 8-16mm, the full-frame of the popular 12-24mm equivilent was one of the wide angle lens that i was looking at before the the news of the incompatibility with A55 came, which i think has been sorted on all new lenses. This looks like a great alternative to the usually comparable Tamaron 10-24mm or the Tokina 11-16mm.
The Minolta 50mm 1.7 seems to be one of the best bargains you can get for price/quality.
Most of the CZ lens are all supposed to be excellent, although most are for full-frame and require many $$$. Im sure they all will work with the APS-C bodies, but theres a price to pay what what some describe as the best quality. Maybe it's worth investing in your gonna stick with the Sony brand.
I believe Sony will be ditching the traditional SLR technology and investing more in the SLT technology and the A900 full-frame body replacement will be SLT, so if the SLT technology isn't your 'thing' then i guess looking at these lenses will not be that worthwhile, price wise.
I will try to think of anything else I've missed or if you have any more questions i would be glad to help.
A few links that every Sony user should visit:
http://kurtmunger.com/index.html
http://www.dyxum.com/index.asp
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1037
If I go Sony and am forced to upgrade to a SLT in the future that isn't a big deal, hell, I could just sell everything and go back to Canon anyway. =P
I will likely pass on any CZ lenses, just as I would pass on Canon L glass, to me, just way too much to pay for marginal improvements. Sure I would rather have a 1.4 85, but at 6x the price, I just don't see the point. If i was making money as a photographer it would be different though, but just for hobby stuff, the pro-level 1st party lenses aren't worth it.
I will look over your links.
As for specific Qs:
How do you feel about the general controls, setting ISO, aperture, setting aperture in Manual? Do you hold down a little button to adjust aperture like on a Canon XXXD when in manual?
How good is the in-body IS? I'm really looking forward to this, even if its just 1-2 stop improvement, that would be huge.
What is your opinion on the video mode, I was really looking forward to the manual controls, and 720p/60FPS of the T2i...
I'm sure i'll think of more later.
[edit] Just looking at raw/jpeg from the A580, man iso 3200, 6400 and 12800 are all usable from jpeg for web resolution, sure the NR is a bit heavy but it still retains a huge amount of detail.... I'm sure the T2i is pretty similar, but this just looks awesome. 2x the pixels with like 3-4 stops improvement in noise over my current dSLR.
The in-body IS i would say is good enough for long exposures, obviously it's gonna be a lot poorer on longer exposures and the chance increases the longer the exposure, but most of my shots have been good, albeit i haven't really relied to much on this system as the A55 is quite light and you can probably hold it steady enough with one hand without straining to keep it stable. The camera does alert you through the VF/LCD when it is working and how much shake the camera is compensating for.
The video mode i haven't used all that much tbh, maybe a couple of times in program mode
SSS is wonderful, even if this camera has a little higher noise than my 350D, SSS lets me take shots at much slower shutter speeds and thus lower ISO. Yayayayay. Inbody IS, its really shocking that Canon/Nikon have not gotten onto this bandwagon yet, its one of the few features you can add to a camera that will actually make better photos.
Old-ass sigma/quantaray lenses are compatable, yay! You'll get an "error 99" if you try to use them on Canon.
Anyone looking for a dirt-cheap 35mm equiv for your sony dslr, get yourself a Simga/Quantaray 24mm 2.8. Preferable one that looks like this, as it will be cheap as hell!
Very sharp, about as loud as Minolta 50mm 1.7, maybe a little louder. Seems most MA mount lenses that use the in-body motor are relatively loud, that is one thing I will miss from Canon. But for the price, you can't go wrong, you can find these well under $100 on ebay. Even at $100-150, this is a good buy.
I have been looking at the Minolta 50mm 1.7 though, just need to compare how well it faces up against the Sony 50mm 1.8 and if the extra cost on the Sony version is worth it.
Some of the Minolta 50/1.7 are 20 years old, which is something to consider, but also a testament to their build quality. I've had/sold a handful of them and all were in good working condition. Older maxxum lenses generally have a "whitening" on the rubber of the grips, do not be scared off by this, a toothbrush + some ArmorAll(or whatever equivalent product you have in the UK, used for cleaning leather/car interiors) works very well to bring it back to new. Often times you'll find a particularly nasty looking Maxxum lens that just needs a good exterior cleaning, then looks mint, but will likely sell for less on eBay.
Look in "film photography" on ebay, you can sometimes find a Minolta 50mm 1.7 attached to a Maxxum 7000 or other Minolta film camera, for 25-50% less than what the lens itself sells for, plus free film camera. =P Just type "Maxxum" into the search in the film photography section, and browse until you find a 7000 + lens, shouldn't take long.
This is a pretty good method for finding good deals on:
Sigma/Quantaray 24mm 2.8
Minolta 24mm 2.8
Minolta 28mm 2.8
Minolta 50mm 1.7
Minolta 50mm 1.4
(primes)
Minolta 35-70mm macro F4
Minolta 28-85mm macro 3.5-4.5
Minolta 35-105mm
Minolta 100-200mm
Minolta 70-210mm F4
Minolta 100-300mm F4.5
(beercan zooms)
All of which are pretty popular on the used market. Often times you'll find lots with 2-4 of the above lenses. The more expensive primes like the 35mm 2.0 and the 135mm 2.8 are harder to find in lots like this though.
PS: As far as the Sig/Quant 24mm 2.8, I have 3 of them (1 sig, 2 quant) and they all work on my A100, however, I've got an older sigma 60-200mm that does NOT work on my A100, so there is a cutoff somewhere likely of how old these lenses work. The quantaray's may be a better bet, as they are generally re-branded older sigma lenses, which means they could be an older design but with a newer chipset.
However, I'm not familiar with the A33/A55 SLT bodies and how compatible older 3rd party lenses are. If you find one for a decent price I would go for it, or look for a Minolta 28mm 2.8 instead, which you might find for ~$200, still a good price.
Double PS: I just ordered the Sony 35mm 1.8 SAM, I will give you an update on the build quality and focus noise vs the older minolta primes, as the 35/50 have a very similar build and same focus system.
Thanks in advance!
vivitar/pheonix/etc 100mm 3.5, this same lens is rebranded by a few different companies, can be had for $75-150. Try to find one with the 1:1 adaptor
sigma/quantaray 50mm 2.8, can be had for less than $150 for oldr versions, may not be compatable with canon
sigma 70mm 2.8, $3-400, really nice, cheaper than similar 1st party macro lenses but excellent lens
tamron 90mm 2.8, similar to above, but 90mm
The tamron 90 would be a good choice to double as a general purpose prime tele, if you get a tele zoom with "macro" it is generally not really what most would consider macro, but 1:4 or less, which isnt bad but depends on how close you really want to get.
What camera and what other lenses do you have?
getting some manual focus macro rings, an adaptor(m42, om, nikon), and an older manual focus macro lens is an option, but i would opt for the 100mm/3.5 at that point.
At first I was thinking along regular entry-level dslr(canon due to previous mentioned arguments, thanks EQ and others).
Now the fuji is just outside her budget but she might budge. I think she might have more fun with the fuji and learn better/faster than a canon with a kit lens?
Why not a canon with a prime you might ask? Well I believe if it's something she'll disapprove with the fuji it would be the lack of zoom.
@ qlz I think Entity's suggestion is great.
I also have a question : I am going on vacation at the end of the month and I am bringing my camera with me. The problem is that I am going camping on the beach. The heat is crazy there and even if I leave the camera in the tent it will still be pretty hot. How would you guys handle that. Also all of the 5d classics tend to have that problem with the glue on the mirror fading off so I dont really want to risk that.
Really not sure what to do here -- I might just bring my older camera with me and whatever happens
Other than that would about a coolbag thats normally used for storing drinks and such?
The X100 would be a great camera for this. Plenty of people started with fixed lens cameras back in the film days. 35mm is very versatile, and forces you to think, rather than zoomy zoom zoom all the time with no thought to composition.
I think it'd be a great idea. It would certainly give better image quality than a cheap dslr with kit lens.
Let her look around my X100 year blog, I've been shooting only with the X100 for 4 months now, and it should give her a good idea of the range of images you can get with it. http://myx100year.blogspot.com
What Ben is suggesting is also very good idea. Somebody perhaps him suggested this when I was starting and it gave me such a boost to start using fixed lens. It can not compare with anything else i have done to improve my photography
http://www.trustedreviews.com/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GF2_Digital-Camera_review
I was thinking of getting a simple Panasonic TZ8 but then I saw the one above and thought it might be worth getting something a bit better.
You can normally get the freeze packs or the gels that can be frozen then place in the coolbags that are sealed units so no risk of leakage
@ calabi I dont know anything about that camera nor any 3d cameras but it kind of expensive
I would go for the GF1 and use the extra cash for the 20mm 1.7 pancake (great lens)
I agree, I really wouldn't suggest an X100 for a beginner, now for someone like Ben, who's main requirement for a camera is that it has a 35mm 2.0 or faster lens, then its a perfect choice. =P
But for someone just starting out, I really wouldn't want to limit them to just a single focal range, esp at the $1200+ price point, its too much of a niche camera. Playing around with a 24/2.8 ~35mm here, this personally would be too wide of a lens, with much too wide depth of field for me to choice as my only lens, I would much prefer a ~50mm. With no possibility of a 75-85mm-ish portrait lens? No thanks.
But yeah, a Nex 5, an Olympus EP-1 with Panasonic 20mm 1.7, a Canon 500D/550D, a Sony A33,A55,A560,A580, those would be my suggestions. Take her to best buy and let her try them out and see how they all feel.
And before I get hate for suggesting an M4/3, Oly/Panasonic simply have a better lens selection than the Nex at this point, the Nex is probably the better system to invest in though, with the much better sensor etc. However, with Sony rumored to be coming out with a ~35mm/2 and ~60mm/2 lenses in 2011, it wouldn't be a bad bet. The ~24mm pancake always seemed like a very odd lens choice.
In other news, I did the math, and by getting a moderate selection of SA lenses:
Quant 24mm
Sony 35mm 1.8
Minolta 50mm 1.7
Minolta 100-200mm 4.5
and selling:
Samyang 8mm
Sigma 30mm 1.4
Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 70-210mm F4
I can afford to buy a used A560! So i did! Weeee, should be here on thursday. I'll get the 85mm/2.8 and likely the Minolta 50mm 1.4 a bit later, maybe replace the 8mm 3.5 fisheye in time but i didn't use it much so no rush.
Different people want different things out of photography. For example you're changing gear like the Fonz changed girlfriends. Nothing wrong with that, photography is up to the individual to determine how they will enjoy it. But, as a general rule, most women get "into gear" less, and prefer the act of taking photographs more, and as a "learn the settings in a few days, then forget about it and get on with taking photos" the X100 is a great camera. It's invisible, much quicker than a dslr with 100 buttons and the option/temptation to switch lenses.
If you can find a shop with one, try letting her handle it and look through the gorgeous viewfinder. She might find the manual controls, small size, and limitation of one lens is appealing. Then again, she might look at a dslr and enjoy that experience more. I just want to re assert my advice that I think having a limited lens choice is a good thing for a beginner. She certainly won't be able to approach the image quality, with video and macro abilities, for the same price point.
Yeah certainly, it all depends on how deep she wants to go into it, if she wants a relatively simple camera with great IQ and isn't interested in carrying multiple lenses then it would be a great choice.
I also agree on starting with just a good lens, IMO it should be a 50mm, not 35mm, but that is just personal preference. But at the same time, I wouldn't personally want to have absolutely no choice to switch it up at some point. An Oly/Pana with the 20mm 1.7 would accomplish the same goal, but leave it open ended for further lens experimentation.
I also think the need for the X100's superb IQ is overstated a bit, at-least for a beginner. Sure its very cool that the sensor is specifically tailored to the lens, and the samples i've seen are very very good. However it is really questionable how much this is going to matter to a beginner. The difference between a Nex, a DSLR, or an X100 compared to whatever P&S camera she is currently using, I really doubt she would care/notice it.
Its like comparing a Canon 50mm 1.8 to the 1.4, when you've been using a shity slow zoom lens on a cheap P&S, certainly the 1.4 is a little better lens, but in the grand scheme, both are huge improvements.
To me recommending an X100 is akin to recommending a Leica to a beginner, I just don't see the point in it. Its a Niche luxury camera. However I have not personally used it, and maybe I would change my tune if i had.
To me this says DSLR/Nex/M4/3.
Well, kit zoom + one nice fast prime, like the Canon EF 35mm 2.0, Sony 35mm 1.8, you can pick up a new Canon/Sony body with kit lens + decent prime for less than the cost of an X100.
From what I've seen the GF1 is the almost the same price as the GF2 except perhaps a bit cheaper with no lenses.
That lense is more expensive than the base unit, which would double the price over above the GF2.
I dont know maybe I'm better off getting a second hand dslr like the thread suggests.
If you're looking at the GF*, you should also take a look at the Sony Nex 5, and variety of Olympus m4/3 bodies(which can use Panasonic lenses).
As Ben said she seems reluctant to carry around several lenses at the moment when we discussed it but wants to learn settings/photography and that's why I came to think of it. Also because I find the viewfinder nifty which was my biggest problem in the beginning when composing pictures. Entry level dslr viewfinders are so small/dark.
But then again as EQ mentions it's pricy as well as limiting if she suddenly realize she want some other optic.
The backup/alternative I've been looking at is a Canon 550/600. Most likely with a kit lens because of the aforementioned reason(Zoom=flexible but slow).