Yeah the XT1 especially has dials and dials and more dials on top of those dials.
Honestly I feel the full retro dial and switch thing, while cool, is also rather limiting. Its true that you have basically full control over all the settings without turning the camera on. But you also have no custom settings either. I can set up custom settings for low light, fast action, etc and save them to various positions on the mode dial, so as a moment happens I can quickly switch to fast action for instance, and catch a bird or a crazy guy running by. On the XT1 you would probably need to change 3 or 4 dials/function buttons to do the same.
It sort of depends how you shoot. I owned the XE1 and these Fuji cameras are pretty quirky, though I hear the XT1 is much faster in operation. If you're the sort of person who likes a slow, calculated approach, the Fujis are great, and they almost force you to shoot like that. The OMDs on the other hand, are just super fast and responsive.
Well decided to go for the X-T1, along with the 14mm and 35mm primes. The 56mm doesn't quite fit in the budget just yet, but will be the next lens.
They had cashback offer on the other lenses so ended up getting the 35mm for just over £100 instead of £409.
Cool! Let me know how you like it. Fuji tends to run very good sales on their lenses, so maybe just wait until the 56 gets a $1-200 rebate. Its a new lens so it might not be for a while.
In the market for a DSLR for both photography and videos. The video is for business needs (real estate), photography will be more of a hobby on the side.
Because of this I was initially looking at the Canon 70D, but after researching it a bit more it seems the image quality is roughly on par with the Canon T5i Rebel. Furthermore, with a 1.6x crop factor it's very difficult to find a focal length that will support the type of video I need to record (interior glamour shots of homes). I am new to photography, so I am not sure what focal length I need for interior shots/video of homes, but I am assuming it needs to be below 30mm. I may have to get a full frame camera to accomplish this.
I planned on only buying a few solid lenses to start, and expanding as I need them. Also planned on experimenting with some quality glass adapters + M42 mounts for lenses. No preference for brand.
Thanks in advance for your time and suggestions everyone. If anyone needs clarification please let me know.
What sort of photography do you want to do? Most camera manufacturers offer many cameras with the same image quality/sensor, but varying features like external controls, sophisticated AF tracking, etc. For Canon's APS-C DSLRs, the image quality hasn't really improved since the T2i or so.
Have you considered a mirrorless camera, or are you dead set on a DSLR? Mirrorless cameras these days offer the same (in some cases better) image quality in a smaller package.
The crop factor really isn't an issue. In most cases, you can find lenses designed for APS-C, even ultrawides like a Sigma 8-16mm which is super crazy wide, or a Panasonic 7-14mm for Micro Four Thirds(2x crop). The larger the sensor is, the less noise you will have (but everything from M43 and up will provide very, very good image quality/noise) and the easier it is to get blurry backgrounds, otherwise there are very few differences in the look of the photos.
For interiors you will generally want an ultrawide zoom of some sort, though for realestate you may not want too wide (as it makes spaces look unnaturally large). On APS-C/1.6x crop, something in the 15mm would be wide while 12mm or less is ultrawide.
The advice I always give people.is go full frame.. get the cheapest full frame body that you can afford. Then you only buy lenses once..
I'm Nikon biased so I'd say you should go for the d610..
As for the lenses a bag of primes is always nice but if starting out a zoom gives the best flexibility.
I move around alot and dont always have the luxury of carrying around all my lenses and my go to lens everytime is the 24-70 f2.8 if i can only take one .
I don't buy into the mirrorless thing.. not yet anyway
I think going full-frame is ok if you have some funds reserved, but the initial outlay for a ff body and a decent lens is quite eye watering expensive for a first DSLR. Although somewhat cheaper now with the 6D and 610. Still the lenses are not cheap and quite bulky compared to APS-C/m43s.
I don't really care for ff at the minute has APS-C suits me, but don't just buy into ff because of the crop factor, like EQ says there's lenses specifically designed for APS-C to match ff equivalents.
Only reason I would look into ff is for the better/creamy bokeh and the lower noise at higher ISO's which isn't all that impressive with some ff bodies because of the huge resolutions there outputting.
Don't be too concerned with all that megapixel nonsense.
The advice I always give people.is go full frame.. get the cheapest full frame body that you can afford. Then you only buy lenses once..
FF cameras are nice for some things and if you do most of your shooting in a studio where size/weight isn't a concern I would agree. If not, there is really no reason to go for the expense and weight of a FF system. Something like the Fuji X system is very close in terms of high ISO noise, dynamic range, and the difference in DOF isn't very large in real use. Even an EM5/EM1 is more than good enough for almost every real world situation (you can't shoot a black cat in a coal mine, or get only one eyeball in focus on a full body shot, or do professional sports with M43rds, but pretty much everything else).
Having shot with FF, APS-C and M43 extensively I can tell you I'm much more likely to get a good shot with my M43 camera, because I'm much more likely to have it with me! Again, how you intend to use the camera is very important. If being agile/traveling is high on your priority list, a bulky FF system is the last thing I would recommend.
Also, for Fuji X system, all the lenses are APS-C designed, in FLs like 23, 35, 56, that correspond to 35, 50, 85, etc, etc. No need to buy lenses twice there, ditto with M43rds, all lenses there are designed with 2x crop in mind. APS-C DSLRs are a little more limited as the pro level lenses tend to be FF lenses, which is a bit of a waste on an APS-C DSLR. If going with a DSLR, I would probably agree and say just go straight to FF, as the size isn't hugely different with APS-C and FF DSLRs.
I'm Nikon biased so I'd say you should go for the d610..
As for the lenses a bag of primes is always nice but if starting out a zoom gives the best flexibility.
I move around alot and dont always have the luxury of carrying around all my lenses and my go to lens everytime is the 24-70 f2.8 if i can only take one .
I don't buy into the mirrorless thing.. not yet anyway
Which mirrorless cameras have you shot with? If none, try out an EM1 and XT1 the next time you're at a camera store.
Only reason I would look into ff is for the better/creamy bokeh and the lower noise at higher ISO's which isn't all that impressive with some ff bodies because of the huge resolutions there outputting.
Don't be too concerned with all that megapixel nonsense.
One thing, the D800 for instance, while at 36MP, also produces pretty much industry leading noise performance (the Sony A7r has the same sensor, as its a Sony made sensor in both). There is a misconception that more megapixels = more noise, which isn't really true these days, its a lot more complex than that.
However, I think the sweet spot in MP is around 16mp, once you get over that, the files are just huge, and storage space and processing time starts to be a concern. You can print quite large with 16mp as well. When you get up to 36MP, you really need to have a perfect lens, and perfect technique (generally shooting on tripod) to really eak out any more resolution than say 24mp or 16mp gives you, and then you need to be printing it extremely large to even see the difference. So yeah, unless you're shooting billboard ads, there isn't much need for the ultra high res cameras.
EQ, thanks for responding. Not sure what type of photography I will be doing precisely (besides video for real estate). I was hoping to take all sorts of shots from macro to telephoto eventually; however, to start with I will probably just buy some basic lens ranges (>30, 50, 85) and buy additional lenses as I need them.
To be honest I have not considered a mirrorless, DSLRs seem to have a much greater variety in terms of lenses. But it does seems newer systems like the M43 are giving DSLRs a run for their money.
I was not aware that there were lenses made specifically for crop sensors. For example the Sigma that you mentioned at 8-16mm will be just that, 8-16mm, no focal length conversion necessary on an APS-C? If I can buy a crop camera and put the money saved into lenses, all the better. But I can buy a full frame if needed.
Also wanted to talk about AF real quick. In the other thread you mentioned you utilize AF 90% of the time. I read other photography forums and it seems most of them claim AF gets in the way most of the time. For example landscape and architectural people seem to find AF frustrating because of all the points of empty space causing the AF to be wrong the majority of the time. Curious on your thoughts here.
APS-C specifically designed lenses like the 8-16 are 35mm equivalent to the popular 12-24 on FF.
Pentax, Nikon, Sony, Fuji are all 1.5x crop.
Canon is 1.6x crop.
So if your fav is 50mm on FF, then look for a 35mm on APS-C to give you the 35mm equivalent.
AF is generally good on most cameras I've tried, especially in good light. It's low light were some cameras hunt for awhile before acquiring focus. Depends on the lenses used as well.
If your set on a DSLR over a Mirrorless system that can easy fit in a shoulder bag, then look at some of the smaller DSLR's like the Sony SLT's or Pentax K5. Still they all amount up once you start putting lenses on them, even more so with the FF lenses.
Pentax do a lot really small primes as well, although there not really that fast, they do keep the bulk down.
For me I've just gone for the middle ground and sold my DSLR and gone for the X-T1 with a couple of there great primes.
One thing, the D800 for instance, while at 36MP, also produces pretty much industry leading noise performance (the Sony A7r has the same sensor, as its a Sony made sensor in both). There is a misconception that more megapixels = more noise, which isn't really true these days, its a lot more complex than that.
However, I think the sweet spot in MP is around 16mp, once you get over that, the files are just huge, and storage space and processing time starts to be a concern. You can print quite large with 16mp as well. When you get up to 36MP, you really need to have a perfect lens, and perfect technique (generally shooting on tripod) to really eak out any more resolution than say 24mp or 16mp gives you, and then you need to be printing it extremely large to even see the difference. So yeah, unless you're shooting billboard ads, there isn't much need for the ultra high res cameras.
Yeah the D800 seems to cope with both well, id sooner take the Nikon DF with the D4 sensor over the D800.
EQ, thanks for responding. Not sure what type of photography I will be doing precisely. I was hoping to take all sorts of shots from macro to telephoto eventually; however, to start with I will probably just buy some basic lens ranges (>30, 50, 85) and buy additional lenses as I need them.
I was more talking about specific styles/types, so like:
Sports?
Weddings?
Portraits?
Landscapes?
Cityscapes?
Interiors?
Low light bars/clubs with friends?
Low light exterior/nightscapes?
Pets/birds?
Vacation snapshots in daylight?
Long exposures, for waterfalls etc?
The specific sort of things you want to do will tend to dictate what sort of camera is best for you.
Also, what sort of budget do you have in mind?
To be honest I have not considered a mirrorless, DSLRs seem to have a much greater variety in terms of lenses. But it does seems newer systems like the M43 are giving DSLRs a run for their money.
Yeah, the M43rds lens lineup is very, very, very good and mature, a few lenses that are missing (extreme telephoto primes) are coming out soon. M43rds has more lenses (by a large margain) than any of the other Mirrorless systems, and more than APS-C specific lenses from Nikon or Canon by a large margin as well. Nikon/Canon have more FF lenses, but it comes do a point where its simply enough, and M43rds is there, with the only real lack ATM specialty tilt/shift lenses and very long lenses (over 600mm equivalent).
Consider that you probably won't own more than 5 lenses, 10 if you get really serious. Do you really need 200 options? Or will 50 suffice? http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html
I was not aware that there were lenses made specifically for crop sensors. For example the Sigma that you mentioned at 8-16mm will be just that, 8-16mm, no focal length conversion necessary on an APS-C? If I can buy a crop camera and put the money saved into lenses, all the better.
A lot of people get confused about this. You do need to do the 1.6x or 2x crop conversion, but there are many lenses designed specifically for crop cameras so that you can buy the same standard-ish lenses regardless of the system.
A common misconception is also that for crop cameras, when you use wide angle lenses you will get more perspective distortion. This is totally false as well, distortion depends entirely on distance to subject, not focal length.
For instance, on a Canon/Nikon camera, you may want a 24-70/2.8, on a Canon 1.6x, you can get a 17-55/2.8 (27-88), and on M43 you get a 12-35/2.8 or 12-40/2,8 (24-70 and 24-80 respectively).
For an ultrawide lens you would get something like a 12-24mm on FF, 8-16mm or 10-20mm(13-28 and 16-31) on APS-C, or 7-14mm or 9-18mm on M43 (14-28 and 18-36).
Basically, to get the "fullframe equivalent focal length", just * the real focal length by the crop factor. 1.6*24 = 38mm, 2*17 = 35mm. Pretty much all the systems have the same basic focal lengths covered (though again, Canon, Nikon and M43 have very large lens lineups, Sony Alpha and Pentax K as well).
The biggest difference when it comes to different crop/sensor sizes, is that the smaller sensors give you less ability to control the depth of field. For that extra expense, weight, and bulk on a FF camera vs a M43rds, you can make the background 2 stops more blurry with the FF system. This can be both a pro and a con however, its great for the FF system if you always shoot wide open, however if you need to stop down (ie: to get ENOUGH in focus, which is a concern for many types of photograph) then you're throwing the advantage out the window a lot of the time. Similar with APS-C crop, but the difference is 1 and 1/3rd stop instead of 2.
So what the DOF/Focal length thing means is:
FF 50mm 1.4
APS-C 35mm 1.4 = 55mm 2.2
M43 25mm 1.4 = 50mm 2.8
In other worse, you can get the same DOF with a FF 2.8 zoom lens as you can with a M43rds 1.4 prime lens. Though again, the differences in DOF in actual use are often blown way out of proportion on internet forums. Much more important to DOF than lens aperture/equivalencies/etc is distance to subject, distance to background and overall composition.
If you shoot prime lenses, a 17/1.8, 25/1.4, and 45/1.8 prime on M43rds will give you enough DOF control/subject isolation for 95% of uses, and all three of those lenses are very small compared to most DSLR lenses.
Also wanted to talk about AF real quick. In the other thread you mentioned you utilize AF 90% of the time. I read other photography forums and it seems most of them claim AF gets in the way most of the time. For example landscape and architectural people seem to find AF frustrating because of all the points of empty space causing the AF to be wrong the majority of the time. Curious on your thoughts here.
Thanks again
This really, really depends on the camera, and exactly how you use it.
If you're shooting landscapes/architecture on a tripod and have time to sit and set up your focus manually, AF/MF doesn't make too big of a difference. Though in these situations you normal have a fairly wide lens, and you're stopping down to get the widest depth of field (most in focus) so nailing focus is extremely easy with AF or MF. I really wonder what people are doing if they have trouble with this sort of shooting.
It could be the camera, some lower end cameras have only a few focus points, mostly in the middle of the frame, which means you need to focus and recompose, which can introduce focusing errors in some situations. Better cameras have a large array of focus points spread over the entire frame (my EM1 has 81 focus points evenly spread).
Another issue is phase detect vs contrast detection focus. DSLRs have PDAF, which means there is a 2nd, completely separate sensor that does the focusing, this can introduce all sorts of focusing errors. Higher end DSLRs have AF micro-tuning options so you can tune the PDAF for specific lenses, but even this isn't particularly reliable. Generally higher end DSLRs have more accurate focusing, but google front/back focusing errors and you'll find page after page of people complaining about these focusing systems. The good part about PDAF is that it tends to be very fast(DEPENDING ON THE LENS, some are quite slow), and it tends to track moving objects very well, which is why it is popular in higher end DSLRs that are intended for shooting sports etc.
Contrast AF on the other hand, which most mirrorless cameras use, uses the actual sensor to do the focusing, which can be much, much more accurate (especially with faster lenses where focusing errors are most noticeable). You can also have more AF points since it works directly off the sensor, not a separate PDAF af unit. The drawback to CDAF is that it can be poor for tracking movement. These days the better mirrorless cameras have hybrid CDAF and on-sensor PDAF to help with tracking, like the EM1 and XT1, while not as good as your pro style Nikon D4 or Canon 1Dx etc, they are very good and suitable for all but the most demanding motion tracking. The latest M43 cameras have insanely fast AF as well, fast enough to catch motion in single AF mode. One of the biggest negatives with CDAF focusing is that, as it uses contrast detection on the image sensor to decide if something is in focus or not, it can be easily tricked by a distracting background element. This was more of an issue with older cameras/very large focus box areas, but the EM1 again for instance, I rarely ever have this problem. So its sort of a trade off, you'll get a totally out of focus shot with CDAF once in a while, and (when shooting fast primes) you'll get an endless stream of minor focus errors with DSLRs.
One last note on manual focusing: For faster lenses where you only have a small sliver in focus, it is extremely difficult to get right. MFing is not an easy task. For ultra wides and the like, it is very easy. The one MF lens I own is a Samyang 7.5mm fisheye lens, which gets set to F5.6 and infinity and pretty much everything is always in focus.
Also, Olympus M43 cameras for instance have in-body image stabilization, which means you can leave the tripod at home for everything but very long exposures (I can get 1 second exposures reliably sharp out of my EM1). All lenses are stabilized when using IBIS, even primes, and Canon/Nikon for instance have very few stabilized primes outside of long telephotos. To me this is a huge advantage, as again I can travel light, and take more photos. Too often when you're out shooting, if you see something cool and need to set up your tripod and fuss about, the moment has already passed. This is why I prefer AF over MF as well.
Yeah the D800 seems to cope with both well, id sooner take the Nikon DF with the D4 sensor over the D800.
Hehe, and I'de sooner take your XT1 over the DF which is a bit of an abomination of retro-styling-for-the-sake-of-it. With the DF you're still stuck with those big FF lenses, so might as well go D800/D610 and have a camera with ergonomics to match the lenses. =P
Yeah the DF is a bit of an oddity and looks overpriced for what it is, plus most of the plastic primes just look wrong on it. Like you say once, you put some good glass on it, it stops becoming portable.
Yeah the DF is a bit of an oddity and looks overpriced for what it is, plus most of the plastic primes just look wrong on it. Like you say once, you put some good glass on it, it stops becoming portable.
Yep, the XT1's design is really what the DF should have been. Plus, throw Fuji's excellent (and small) primes on the XT1 and give it to a capable photographer, and nobody will be able to tell the difference in output.
As far as styles: landscapes, cityscapes, interiors, low light exteriors nightscapes, pets (and birds eventually), macro.
Im not opposed to Mirrorless, but it seems relatively new compared to DSLR. As a computer enthusiast I try to "future proof" as much as possible, as futile as that is. But as you said M43 is a mature platform. Can mirrorless achieve the shallow depth of field that DSLR is known for? In addition anything I buy needs to be capable of producing good video.
Appreciate you taking the time to clarify and elaborate on AF and crop factor as well.
As far as styles: landscapes, cityscapes, interiors, low light exteriors nightscapes, pets (and birds eventually), macro.
Im not opposed to Mirrorless, but it seems relatively new compared to DSLR. As a computer enthusiast I try to "future proof" as much as possible, as futile as that is. But as you said M43 is a mature platform. Can mirrorless achieve the shallow depth of field that DSLR is known for? In addition anything I buy needs to be capable of producing good video.
Appreciate you taking the time to clarify and elaborate on AF and crop factor as well.
For landscapes, interiors etc, if you have the time and want to set up a tripod and all that, a larger DSLR with a high res sensor is going to give really good results. Assuming you don't mind the setup time and and aren't in a rush. If you don't care about the size/weight, a Nikon D7100, D610, D800 would be my recommendation here (Nikon has better dynamic range than Canon, which is very important for landscapes and such). Though a smaller mirrorless system is perfectly capable as well.
However, do you want to go out hiking? If so you don't want to carry a huge load. Are you going to drive to most places? Then the larger load is less of an issue. If you want to be mobile, a mirrorless system makes much more sense.
For birds (or fast pets, like running dogs) a camera with a sophisticated AF system is generally ideal. Canon 7D, Nikon D7100, Canon 5DIII, Canon 1DX, Nikon D800, Nikon D4, Pentax K3 etc. EM1 is about the best there is on the mirrorless end, but not up to par with DSLRs for AF tracking.
Macro, you can do macro with any decent interchangeable lens camera, no real concerns here.
DOF depends on a number of things. Sony and Fuji cameras have the same APS-C crop sensors as Nikon/Canon APS-C, so there is no difference in DOF there. Fuji especially with its 56/1.2 can take photos with DOF like a full frame camera with an 85/1.8, which is very, very narrow. A Canon 5D and an 85L or 135L can blur the background even more, but you're really at the "only 1 eyelash in focus" realm there, which is seldom useful.
With M43rds the ability to blur the background is a little less, but again it is really not nearly as big of an issue as the internet makes of it. The difference between M43rds and APS-C is 2/3rds a stop, which will be barely noticable except under the most anal-retentive examination.
Again DOF is mostly about how close your subject is to the camera, and how far the background is from the subject. Get close to your subject, and get some room between the background and you can take narrow DOF photos with basically any halfway decent camera. It gets really subjective though, the question is less "can crop cameras blur the background" and more "do you need to blur the background, or do you need to absolutely annihilate the background into a blurry mush"? Super narrow DOF is often used as a crutch or a replacement for good composition, personally, I'm trying to force myself to rely less on it and focus more on background elements and composition.
If you want to future proof, invest in lenses, regardless of the system. Camera bodies lose value instantly, while lenses tend to hold value very, very well.
Canon and Nikon are obviously not going anywhere, and IMO it would be a shock if anything happened to the M43rds system as it is supported by two major companies (Olympus and Panasonic) and quite mature at this point. Fuji X is still young but looks promising. Sony Alpha DSLRs look shaky, may be discontinued at any point, Pentax DSLRs have been shaky for a while (pentax was sold to Hoya, and then to Ricoh), Sony NEX/Mirrorless I wouldn't invest in, they make too many cameras and too few lenses, and change product strategies entirely too often.
So, the first thing to remember with video is that moreso than the camera itself, video quality depends on your lighting, your rig/how you stabilize it, how you set up focus pulling, how you record it(external recorder?) and all other very technical video stuff that is quite a bit less accessable to get in to than photography. Doing quality video work is hard as hell.
That said, a 5DII or 5DIII hacked with magic lantern stuff is a good choice. A panasonic GH3 (m43) is just about the best consumer DSLR style body you can get for video, or a hacked GH2 on more of a budget. The GH4 will be out soon which does 4K as well. Nikons are not particularly good for video, nor are Fuji, Pentax, etc. Sony is so-so. Olympus's IBIS is awesome for video, like a steadycam rig without the rig, but they have limited framerates/bitrates (no 24p).
Also for video you will not want to rely on AF, so adapted lenses are fine there, in fact generally preferred. High quality video lenses are MF only.
What exactly makes a camera better than another for video? I Keep reading about people boasting that Canon > Nikon for video, and I never quite understood why.
What exactly makes a camera better than another for video? I Keep reading about people boasting that Canon > Nikon for video, and I never quite understood why.
Available framerates, resolutions, compression type/codec quality, options for audio monitoring, options for add on equipment/audio ports etc, raw hdmi output, how susceptible the sensor is to jellyrolling, moire, all sorts of things like that.
I've looked at comparisons and "how to compare" guides but i'd appreciate some help from the obviously clued in people here. Managed to read 5 pages backwards skimming the posts ;')
I actually only use my ff dslr now the only other camera i use to take pictures apaprt from my phone is a fujifilm polaroid camera mainly for social and novelty factors.. the papers bleeding expensive though...
Ive got a wide enough variety of lenses to shoot pretty much anything and i know as long as im setting up the shot correctly the results are going to be great.
Yes the camera is big and heavy with the lens but actually if you have the right strap the weight isnt an issue. I recently went around hong kong island with my d600 with battery grip and with a 14-24mm f2.8 and my 50mm prime in my pocket and walked for 5 hours around the island and it not flat at all.. weight wise not a problem.
One very important factor the EQ mentions is that the lenses hold thier value incredibly well for nikon/canon ff format.. and that has given me comfort everytime ive purchased a new lens.
Id choose the D800 over the the Df actually.. and as for megapixels.. having loads of megapixels gives more cropping options in post which i like. So i wouldnt say its totally nonsense to have too much resolution, it gives you flexibility ..
My opinion is still the same entry level ff dslr..
EQ - ive got a good selection of lenses now and am really comfortable with my setup so as to not really have interest in mirrorless, im not saying that it isnt good, just not too high up the priority list right now.
Just wanted to say thank you everyone for taking the time to put forth their recommendations for cameras. At this point I think the best thing for me to do is to make a list of the cameras mentioned in this thread and study them in greater depth to see what fits my shooting needs the closest.
If you want to future proof, invest in lenses, regardless of the system. Camera bodies lose value instantly, while lenses tend to hold value very, very well.
What are some brands that you would recommend in general for lenses. Sigma came up earlier so there is that example.
Also, as far as the interior shots of houses go, what effective focal length should I stay between (for example 15mm to 30mm)? It needs to be wide enough to take in all the information in the room, but not too wide.
Sigma has been AWESOME lately. I know lots of people who've been selling their Canon L series lenses and replacing them with Sigma's new Art series. Tokina has a few good ones too.
The Fuji is a bridge camera not a DSLR, so you'd be stuck with that lens.
Again you should post what you'll use the camera for and how much you wanna spend.
Whoops on the bridge ;')
I'm looking at £100-£200 mark. General mostly personal photography, family life etc. Anything above 10mp is okay really. Video preferable but optional.
Just wanted to say thank you everyone for taking the time to put forth their recommendations for cameras. At this point I think the best thing for me to do is to make a list of the cameras mentioned in this thread and study them in greater depth to see what fits my shooting needs the closest.
Yes, and if possiby, get to a store and try all of the ones you are interested in. Its very important for you to feel comfortable with how a camera feels in your hand and that you like the controls/interface.
What are some brands that you would recommend in general for lenses. Sigma came up earlier so there is that example.
First party lenses are always going to retain value the best.
Sigma, Tamron and Tokina are second tier lenses which are very good as well. Sigma lenses have a nasty habit of no longer working on new cameras because the reverse engineer the mount, however the latest ones have a USB mount you can buy to upgrade the firmware yourself.
Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander make very good manual focus lenses which hold value (or even gain over time).
I wouldn't really bother with any other manufacturers. Except for Samyang for MF only lenses. Samyang is a Korea company that makes awesome-tastic and cheap manual focus lenses. Their wides and fisheyes are very good, and they even make some great primes like 24/1.4, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4. Samyang lenses don't have great resale value because they tend to be so cheap in the first place.
Also, as far as the interior shots of houses go, what effective focal length should I stay between (for example 15mm to 30mm)? It needs to be wide enough to take in all the information in the room, but not too wide.
Thanks again
Uhhh this really depends, best to pick up an ultra wide zoom somewhere in the range of 12-24mm or 16-35mm in FF terms and see how you feel about it. Its going to be subjective.
Dose anyone have an experience with a Macro lens? Fairly new to photography but really enjoying it for personal fun and the more I think about it the more I would like to add a Macro lens to my kit.
I have a T3i with a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens and a 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Zoom lens. And shoot with a tripod if need be.
Ideally looking for one around the +/- 250 dollar range but can go more if it is really worth it to do so. Trying to figure out what are the big things I should be paying attention to on lens still kind escapes me.
Dose anyone have an experience with a Macro lens? Fairly new to photography but really enjoying it for personal fun and the more I think about it the more I would like to add a Macro lens to my kit.
I have a T3i with a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens and a 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Zoom lens. And shoot with a tripod if need be.
Ideally looking for one around the +/- 250 dollar range but can go more if it is really worth it to do so. Trying to figure out what are the big things I should be paying attention to on lens still kind escapes me.
Canon EF 50mm 2.5 macro falls into that price range, but that is a 1:2 macro (which means it doesn't focus quite as close as a 1:1 macro, but still very close).
Tamron 90mm 2.8 also falls into that price range for a used copy, especially one of the older models (all are good). Its a 1:1 macro and at 90mm you get more working distance (you'll be further from your subject which is important for anything that moves, and you won't block your light).
Sigma 50mm 2.8 EX DG, 1:1 macro lens, similar to the Canon 50/2.5 but does 1:1. Beware older versions as they may not be compatible with DSLRs/only do 1:2. Used or maybe even new can be found in that price range-ish.
Sigma 70mm 2.8 EX DG, another 1:1 macro, is also a good bet, but probably in the $350-400 range used.
Macro lenses are almost universally extremely good lenses, with good, even sharpness across the frame, and are slow (and sometimes loud) to AF. Though many people stick to MF for macro lenses.
Just wanted to say thank you everyone for taking the time to put forth their recommendations for cameras. At this point I think the best thing for me to do is to make a list of the cameras mentioned in this thread and study them in greater depth to see what fits my shooting needs the closest.
What are some brands that you would recommend in general for lenses. Sigma came up earlier so there is that example.
Also, as far as the interior shots of houses go, what effective focal length should I stay between (for example 15mm to 30mm)? It needs to be wide enough to take in all the information in the room, but not too wide.
I'm looking at £100-£200 mark. General mostly personal photography, family life etc. Anything above 10mp is okay really. Video preferable but optional.
You'd probably be able to get something like a used Canon 1100d with a kit lens for around the £200ish mark.
@ JohnnyRaptor:
Astrophotography can be ridiculously expensive, what with the cost of equatorial mounts. You're going to need a solid tripod, and a mount that will factor in the rotation of the earth, otherwise you'll get long star trails with your long exposures. This can be a good thing if it is the effect you want, but if you want nice shots of the milky way, you'll need other tools than just a tripod.
A cheap way to do this is to make a DIY "Barn Door" mount. There are countless tutorials on how to make one, and from what I've seen, they work pretty well, and cost about 10$ to make. I have never delved into astrophotography myself yet however.
Also, it's a lot more complicated than just pointing your camera to the night sky, having a long 4-hour exposure and calling it done. What I've seen most people do is take hundreds of shorter exposures (2-4 minutes), and merge them together in PS afterwards. This allows for better control of the final result, and won't have your sensor overheating. Really long exposures (15-20+ minutes) cause your sensor to heat up, generating a lot of noise in your shot, even at ISO 100, especially at ISO 100. With a barn door mount, you'll eliminate the star trail blur and get a nice sharp result.
Avoiding light pollution is critical, but that goes without saying. Long exposures of the night sky anywhere near a city will just result in a big orange cloud of vomit.
Prophecies, thanks for the info man, yeah im quite new to photography besides your usual point and shoot holiday stuff, so this is quite a fun learning experience.
I just recently learnt about the need for countering the rotation of the earth after a few test 10min shots. Besides lightpolution i had a ton of streaks, but also a ton perfectly clear crisp stars!
I will definitely have to look in to this barn door thing.
You'd probably be able to get something like a used Canon 1100d with a kit lens for around the £200ish mark.
Personally I would go for a used T2i, T3i, T4i etc over the 1100D/T3, which is a stripped down T2i. Cost shouldn't be too much different.
For this price range one of these cameras makes sense, and then the EF 50mm 1.8 at some point in the future (usually about $120, dunno what it sells for there).
Prophecies, thanks for the info man, yeah im quite new to photography besides your usual point and shoot holiday stuff, so this is quite a fun learning experience.
I just recently learnt about the need for countering the rotation of the earth after a few test 10min shots. Besides lightpolution i had a ton of streaks, but also a ton perfectly clear crisp stars!
I will definitely have to look in to this barn door thing.
Be sure to activate any kind of Long-Exposure Noise Reduction feature your camera may have. If you have long star streaks, there is no way that you have nice sharp stars too. Those sharp stars aren't stars, but rather noise in your image caused by your sensor. This is where a quality camera body comes in handy!
But yeah i thought it was odd too, ill drop post the photo in question when i get home
And good call about the LE noise reduction, dont think i have it on.
BTW, would this be something i should turn off when i take regular photos? or is the camera intelligent enough to only use it for long exposures as the name suggests?
I was not saying you aren't using a good body, I had no idea what camera you have, sorry if I came across as rude!
Definitely turn on LE Noise Reduction, I usually leave it on, the camera only makes use of it when you are shooting with exposures longer than 1 second. For normal use, it won't be taken into account. Bear in mind, LE Noise Reduction doubles the time it takes before you can see the photo you take. For example, you are shooting the night sky with a 4-minute exposure, LE Noise reduction will require 4 minutes to process the image and reduce the noise. Therefore, your camera will be unusable for a total of 8 minutes. Something to keep in mind if you are out late at night.
Multiple shorter exposure photos, merged together in post is often better than one really long exposure.
np , you didnt come across rude at all, was just worried i had bought a camera on the wrong information! as i said before this i only had a point and shoot camera, so any info is gold!
At this point it looks like I am leaning towards the GH3. I was really impressed with how the camera was able to handle aliasing and moire, and filming houses with brick exteriors, that is sort of a big deal to me.
The downside for me taking interior shots is I will have to drop a decent amount of cash on glass for an ultra wide due to the 2x crop factor, but that was to be expected.
My only concerns with the GH3 are:
Will the GH3 be able to take decent photographs? It has 16 mega pixels, but then again unless your blowing your image up to bill board size this should be enough.
16mp will easily allow you to print at A3 sizes, even with cropping. Don't be overly concerned with the megapixel race.
For ultra wide lenses you'd probably want to look at the Lumix 7-14mm F4 or the Zuiko 12mm F2. Samyang/Rokinon also make some good UWA lenses but they're MF.
I'm sure EQ will have more suggestions, but those were the lenses I was looking at when looking at switching to m43.
BTW, my X-T1 arrived today, unfortunately Lightroom doesn't look the best for processing the RAW files and people have been recommending PhotoNinja, anyone have any experience with it?
At this point it looks like I am leaning towards the GH3. I was really impressed with how the camera was able to handle aliasing and moire, and filming houses with brick exteriors, that is sort of a big deal to me.
The downside for me taking interior shots is I will have to drop a decent amount of cash on glass for an ultra wide due to the 2x crop factor, but that was to be expected.
My only concerns with the GH3 are:
Will the GH3 be able to take decent photographs? It has 16 mega pixels, but then again unless your blowing your image up to bill board size this should be enough.
Any recommendations for an ultra wide lens?
The GH3 really is one of the absolute best choices if you're serious about video, despite the smaller sensor size. Panasonic really has the video thing down.
M43rds glass can be a little more expensive, but you're going to have to pay a lot for a good UWA lens in any system.
Panasonic 7-14/4 is a really, really good lens. But you can't use filters with it. $700 used, $900 new. (Nikon's 14-24mm, which is equally as wide, costs $2000, though it is 2.8 vs 4.0).
Olympus 9-18mm/4-5.6 is significantly cheaper ($600 new, $450 used), lighter and smaller, but doesn't go as wide (only 18mm equivalent). Still very wide, just not as wide as the 7-14. Can take filters though.
Olympus 12mm 2.0 is a very nice, very small and light fast prime. Only 24mm equiv though which isn't really an ultrawide. Not a particularly cheap lens either at $600 or so.
Samyang 7.5mm 3.5 is a tiny, dirt cheap($250) and super sharp fisheye lens. Super wide but you get the fisheye distortion of course. Can't take filters either. Manual focus only but not really an issue with a FE.
I have all of these but the Olympus 9-18mm, and all are fantastic lenses.
My 7-14mm on 16mp EM1 sensor easily out-resolves my old Sigma 12-24mm lens on fullframe 24MP Sony A900. The Sigma was noticeably wider though.
The GH3 will take very good still images as well. ISO 3200 is decent, ISO 6400 is sometimes usable and ISO 12800 is really pushing it. If you shoot in extremely low light a lot an APS-C or FF camera will be a little better, but only if you always shoot wide open. If you need to stop down to get more in focus in low light, the bigger sensors lose the advantage.
You will want to look into lenses with image stabilization though, as it doesn't have IBIS like the Olympus M43rds cameras do (but then neither do Nikon, Canon, Sony NEX or Fuji X). Panasonic 12-35/2.8 is a very very good standard zoom. Panasonic 12-32 pancake is really cool as well, but its a slow kit lens so don't expect too much.
After the better part of a year or so being unable to dive into photography due to financial reasons, I'm finally able to take the plunge and buy a camera.
I've read the majority of this thread and it's been a massive help in trying to wade through all the lingo and technical aspects of looking into a body and lenses. It'd be nice to get some opinions from people who know what they're talking about before I make a decision on equipment.
What I'll be using the camera for is to:
a) See if I even enjoy photography
b) Take photos of everything I see but mainly of subjects that will most likely require a standard prime lens, I figure between a 35mm-50mm(56mm-80mm) prime would work for this. I don't really plan on taking pictures of landscapes and things of the like, I just want something that's close to what the human eye sees for now.
c) Use photography as a means to improve my understand of composition, light, color, etc.
d) Take texture reference photos and other general purpose photos.
Budget wise, I'm thinking around $1000, obviously the less I spend the better but I'd rather get a quality lens and body I'm comfortable with to help ensure I don't get discouraged because my lens is garbage and I hate the feel/features of the body.
At the moment, body wise I'm thinking between a Sony A-57 with a SAL35F18 lense. The SEL35F18 looks like a nice step up most likely but considering I don't even know if I'll enjoy snapping photos, and the fact that a cheaper lens that gets the job done for a beginner would be enough for now, I think it'd be smart to pass on it.
The other options would be a T2i or T3i with a EF 50mm f/1.8 II.
Or perhaps just getting a kit with one of these bodies would be better? I'm assuming I'm going to mostly use a prime to start out due to my desire to have my photos be similar to what the eye sees regarding fov and the smaller f-stop for lower light situations in comparison to a zoom lens but until I actually use a prime or a zoom, I'm just presuming here.
here are the test shots i was talking about where i got streaks and dots when i test shot out my back window,
pardon the big size,
reading up on it, the way to go without motorized mounts is large aperture, superhigh iso and shorter exposure..which is exactly opposite to the pic above...and also not out your bedroom window in the middle of the town!
After the better part of a year or so being unable to dive into photography due to financial reasons, I'm finally able to take the plunge and buy a camera.
I've read the majority of this thread and it's been a massive help in trying to wade through all the lingo and technical aspects of looking into a body and lenses. It'd be nice to get some opinions from people who know what they're talking about before I make a decision on equipment.
What I'll be using the camera for is to:
a) See if I even enjoy photography
b) Take photos of everything I see but mainly of subjects that will most likely require a standard prime lens, I figure between a 35mm-50mm(56mm-80mm) prime would work for this. I don't really plan on taking pictures of landscapes and things of the like, I just want something that's close to what the human eye sees for now.
c) Use photography as a means to improve my understand of composition, light, color, etc.
d) Take texture reference photos and other general purpose photos.
Budget wise, I'm thinking around $1000, obviously the less I spend the better but I'd rather get a quality lens and body I'm comfortable with to help ensure I don't get discouraged because my lens is garbage and I hate the feel/features of the body.
At the moment, body wise I'm thinking between a Sony A-57 with a SAL35F18 lense. The SEL35F18 looks like a nice step up most likely but considering I don't even know if I'll enjoy snapping photos, and the fact that a cheaper lens that gets the job done for a beginner would be enough for now, I think it'd be smart to pass on it.
The other options would be a T2i or T3i with a EF 50mm f/1.8 II.
Or perhaps just getting a kit with one of these bodies would be better? I'm assuming I'm going to mostly use a prime to start out due to my desire to have my photos be similar to what the eye sees regarding fov and the smaller f-stop for lower light situations in comparison to a zoom lens but until I actually use a prime or a zoom, I'm just presuming here.
I wouldn't go with an A57 (despite what I've written earlier in this thread). I think Sony is soon going to kill off the A mount system entirely in favor of the Sony NEX/E mount system. Also, if you're going to go for a camera system that has an electronic viewfinder (which has its pros and cons over optical ons) you might as well go with a mirrorless camera and get a significantly smaller/lighter setup.
What I would suggest is an Olympus OMD EM10 or a Panasonic GX7, and for the lens, one of the following:
Olympus 17mm 1.8 (~35mm)
Olympus 25mm 1.8 (~50mm)
Olympus 45mm 1.8 (~90mm)
If you're going for just one prime I would go with the 25/1.8. Going with one prime I think is actually a very good idea as a starting kit, zooms tend to make you lazy until you really understand how focal lengths work. The EM10 + 25/1.8 comes in at slightly over your budget at $1100. Getting it with the kit zoom is only an extra $100 though, so something to consider. A zoom can be a good way to decide which focal lengths you like and which primes to buy in the future.
On the other hand, a used T2i and a EF 50/1.8 will cost way less, and you can use the extra money there to pick up a 24mm or 35mm lens. Though to me, something like an EM10, despite being a lot smaller, gives you a whole lot more camera than a Canon Rebel. IBIS, much more direct controls (the Rebel controls are purposely left very basic to get you to upgrade to a XXD or XD model), EVF offers live exposure and white balance preview (imo this is huge and not talked about very often, I get a much better idea of what my shot will look like with an EVF, plus the tiny/dark OVFs in rebels and similar cameras just suck), way more AF points, touch screen with focus point selection, tilty rear screen, super fast and silent single AF performance (a rebel and 50/1.8 are slow and loud to focus).
A Fuji EX1/EX2 and the 35/1.4 lens are also options to consider, but the EM10 and GX7 cameras are significantly faster in operation than these two. The Fuji XT1 is improved over the EX2, but thats $1300 body alone.
Are there any brands that are on shaky grounds so to speak? For instance I was reading on another forum some users were hesitant to purchase Sony bodies because they are concerned about Sony changing strategies all the time, making the future less certain for their products.
Are there any brands that are on shaky grounds so to speak? For instance I was reading on another forum some users were hesitant to purchase Sony bodies because they are concerned about Sony changing strategies all the time, making the future less certain for their products.
Yes I am generally leery of Sony these days. They make some very interesting camera bodies (see: Sony A7) but switch lens mounts/strategies so often (see: DSLR, SLT, E mount, FE mount) that its really hard for me to have long term faith in what they do. Recently they put out as many camera bodies as they do lenses, which is just a bad sign.
And this is coming from a Sony A mount shooter. I had two Sony bodies and about 9 high end A mount lenses, and the last two will hit eBay soon.
If Sony offers what you need in terms of bodies and lenses today, consider them, but don't try to think about what they will offer in the future, because nobody knows.
Sony does some very odd things. They had the #3 market share in DSLRs and decide to do the stupid SLT thing (use an EVF in a DSLR style body with a semi-tranlucent mirror that degrades image quality).
Then Sony NEX mirrorless APS-C system is doing quite well, and they divert all resources to Sony FE mirrorless system, and need to design all new lenses, which are basically as big as DSLR lenses (so no size/weight difference which is why NEX did well in the first place).
They don't really appear to have a clear goal. At least with Canon, Nikon, M43rds and even Fuji to an extent you know what you're getting into.
If I wanted a DSLR other than Canon/Nikon, I would get a Pentax.
If I wanted a Mirrorless, I would get a M43rd or a Fuji.
Yeah Sony have been all over the place, they produce way to many bodies and not enough lenses, even if they are backed up with Minolta lenses, the A mount doesn't look to good. Again coming from a Sony user.
They do make some great stuff and like to shake the market up over Nikon/Canon who seem quite set in there ways, but if I were going Sony again, it would definitely be for the E mount stuff like the A7.
Canon/Nikon own like 80% of the market share for DSLRs, so they always come recommended, but like EQ says I think Pentax make some great cameras that beat both Canon/Nikon for price/features.
The Pentax K-5 II seems like a great body coupled with there limited primes. Smallish DSLR with IBIS and probably one of the best sensors for dynamic range in APS-C. Only problem is they lack a full frame upgrade path at this time.
I was considering a Pentax K-5 IIs before I switched to the Fuji and would still take a lot now if I was looking for a DSLR, but for now you just can't beat the image quality to weight comparison of mirrorless systems.
If you don't shoot sports and use crazy high ISO's then I would seriously look at mirrorless.
Yeah, I agree with pretty much everything Ark says.
If you're thinking about Sony, I would go E mount or FE mount, though even then I seriously question the dedication to offering a full lens lineup (which M43 basically has today).
Canon and Nikon DSLRs are what most people use, what most professionals use, and are easy to recommend simply because, well, its all people generally know. They have the biggest systems, they have the best support network, and they make good, reliable products. But the also are the most conservative when it comes innovation, so when you buy a Canon/Nikon camera, you'll get a very good, but often basic camera. They also have very tightly defined product tiers, and the rarely push high end stuff down to the low end models, for fear that they will cannibalize their higher end sales.
The mirrorless cameras, such as M43, and Fuji X, do not have the same issues. They're young systems that have innovated and improved much more rapidly than anything Canon/Nikon have done since, well, since Canon/Minolta came out with autofocus SLRs back in the late 80's. Mirrorless cameras have gone from the point where they were nice upgrades over point and shoots but not really serious cameras (Oly EP1/EPL1 etc), to the point where they can replace a semi-professional DSLR for almost every use. They've made this progress all in the last 5 years or so, which is really cool to see, and I can't see any reason why they wouldn't continue to push the market.
Again back to Canon/Nikon, both have come out with half-assed mirrorless systems, the Nikon V system and Canon M system, the Nikon has really cool AF features, but both of these systems were intentionally crippled so they do not compete with their low end DSLRs (which they make most of their money on).
Nikon/Canon make some amazing cameras, like the D800, D4, D7100, 5DIII, 1DX, 7D, but pretty much everything other than these cameras have some serious omissions that you would expect to get when paying the price you do for a DSLR. You have to shell out over $1000 generally just to get two dial controls, its ridiculous. You have to buy at least a D7100 to get a Nikon body that will AF with Nikon's older AF lenses which is absurd (at least Sony and Pentax got this right). The high end cameras that have all the cool stuff that is common in a lot of mirrorless cameras at a lower price point (physical controls for all the basic functions, customization, etc) tend to cost quite a lot and be very large and heavy and just generally overkill for what most people need out of a camera.
I tried a bunch of mirrorless cameras early on and was never really satisfied. Then came the Olympus OMD EM5, which seemed to do everything that mirrorless cameras struggled with at the time, very high quality, weather sealed body, dual dial controls with a bunch of custom function buttons, image quality on part with most APS-C DSLRs, and a large, high quality electronic viewfinder. The only real weakness with that camera was AF tracking, which has been significantly improved in cameras like the EM1, XT1, and Sony A6000.
I originally got the EM5 as an alternate camera to use when I didn't want the bulk of my big DSLR gear. Then a funny thing happened, after about a year I had taken the EM5 on a number of trips, I would grab it every time I left the house and wanted a camera, and I realized that the DSLR gear just sat on the shelf. It does basically everything I did with my DSLR gear, and the things it didn't do, weren't worth the bulk of taking the big stuff with me. Then the EM1 came, and fixed the last few quirks of the EM5 for me (bigger/more comfortable grip, better controls, AF tracking, 1/8000 shutter, even bigger and better EVF, etc), the EM1 is easily competitive with a Canon 70D, Nikon D7100, even a 5DII, D700 etc provided you're not doing sports or extreme lowlight.
So all this adds up to me recommending mirrorless cameras to anyone but professional photographers these days.
What do you think of the a6000 Sony's about to put out? I have no problem with spending a few hundred dollars over the $1000 budget I talked about, I'm just trying to figure out if what's going to be a smarter purchase right now.
The hardest part for me is that I don't know exactly what I'm looking for yet and what types of pictures I'll finally settle into taking (assuming I enjoy the hobby), so I know that what ever I get, I'll probably be happy with and will work for me. Still, I enjoy buying semi-quality equipment, regardless if I've been doing something for years or just getting into it.
Replies
Honestly I feel the full retro dial and switch thing, while cool, is also rather limiting. Its true that you have basically full control over all the settings without turning the camera on. But you also have no custom settings either. I can set up custom settings for low light, fast action, etc and save them to various positions on the mode dial, so as a moment happens I can quickly switch to fast action for instance, and catch a bird or a crazy guy running by. On the XT1 you would probably need to change 3 or 4 dials/function buttons to do the same.
It sort of depends how you shoot. I owned the XE1 and these Fuji cameras are pretty quirky, though I hear the XT1 is much faster in operation. If you're the sort of person who likes a slow, calculated approach, the Fujis are great, and they almost force you to shoot like that. The OMDs on the other hand, are just super fast and responsive.
They had cashback offer on the other lenses so ended up getting the 35mm for just over £100 instead of £409.
Thanks for all the advice EQ.
Will see what the prices are like once I've sold the Sony stuff.
Because of this I was initially looking at the Canon 70D, but after researching it a bit more it seems the image quality is roughly on par with the Canon T5i Rebel. Furthermore, with a 1.6x crop factor it's very difficult to find a focal length that will support the type of video I need to record (interior glamour shots of homes). I am new to photography, so I am not sure what focal length I need for interior shots/video of homes, but I am assuming it needs to be below 30mm. I may have to get a full frame camera to accomplish this.
I planned on only buying a few solid lenses to start, and expanding as I need them. Also planned on experimenting with some quality glass adapters + M42 mounts for lenses. No preference for brand.
Thanks in advance for your time and suggestions everyone. If anyone needs clarification please let me know.
Have you considered a mirrorless camera, or are you dead set on a DSLR? Mirrorless cameras these days offer the same (in some cases better) image quality in a smaller package.
The crop factor really isn't an issue. In most cases, you can find lenses designed for APS-C, even ultrawides like a Sigma 8-16mm which is super crazy wide, or a Panasonic 7-14mm for Micro Four Thirds(2x crop). The larger the sensor is, the less noise you will have (but everything from M43 and up will provide very, very good image quality/noise) and the easier it is to get blurry backgrounds, otherwise there are very few differences in the look of the photos.
For interiors you will generally want an ultrawide zoom of some sort, though for realestate you may not want too wide (as it makes spaces look unnaturally large). On APS-C/1.6x crop, something in the 15mm would be wide while 12mm or less is ultrawide.
I'm Nikon biased so I'd say you should go for the d610..
As for the lenses a bag of primes is always nice but if starting out a zoom gives the best flexibility.
I move around alot and dont always have the luxury of carrying around all my lenses and my go to lens everytime is the 24-70 f2.8 if i can only take one .
I don't buy into the mirrorless thing.. not yet anyway
I don't really care for ff at the minute has APS-C suits me, but don't just buy into ff because of the crop factor, like EQ says there's lenses specifically designed for APS-C to match ff equivalents.
Only reason I would look into ff is for the better/creamy bokeh and the lower noise at higher ISO's which isn't all that impressive with some ff bodies because of the huge resolutions there outputting.
Don't be too concerned with all that megapixel nonsense.
FF cameras are nice for some things and if you do most of your shooting in a studio where size/weight isn't a concern I would agree. If not, there is really no reason to go for the expense and weight of a FF system. Something like the Fuji X system is very close in terms of high ISO noise, dynamic range, and the difference in DOF isn't very large in real use. Even an EM5/EM1 is more than good enough for almost every real world situation (you can't shoot a black cat in a coal mine, or get only one eyeball in focus on a full body shot, or do professional sports with M43rds, but pretty much everything else).
Having shot with FF, APS-C and M43 extensively I can tell you I'm much more likely to get a good shot with my M43 camera, because I'm much more likely to have it with me! Again, how you intend to use the camera is very important. If being agile/traveling is high on your priority list, a bulky FF system is the last thing I would recommend.
Also, for Fuji X system, all the lenses are APS-C designed, in FLs like 23, 35, 56, that correspond to 35, 50, 85, etc, etc. No need to buy lenses twice there, ditto with M43rds, all lenses there are designed with 2x crop in mind. APS-C DSLRs are a little more limited as the pro level lenses tend to be FF lenses, which is a bit of a waste on an APS-C DSLR. If going with a DSLR, I would probably agree and say just go straight to FF, as the size isn't hugely different with APS-C and FF DSLRs.
Which mirrorless cameras have you shot with? If none, try out an EM1 and XT1 the next time you're at a camera store.
Some work from these lowly 2x crop mirrorless cameras:
http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=58189
http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=61628
One thing, the D800 for instance, while at 36MP, also produces pretty much industry leading noise performance (the Sony A7r has the same sensor, as its a Sony made sensor in both). There is a misconception that more megapixels = more noise, which isn't really true these days, its a lot more complex than that.
However, I think the sweet spot in MP is around 16mp, once you get over that, the files are just huge, and storage space and processing time starts to be a concern. You can print quite large with 16mp as well. When you get up to 36MP, you really need to have a perfect lens, and perfect technique (generally shooting on tripod) to really eak out any more resolution than say 24mp or 16mp gives you, and then you need to be printing it extremely large to even see the difference. So yeah, unless you're shooting billboard ads, there isn't much need for the ultra high res cameras.
EQ, thanks for responding. Not sure what type of photography I will be doing precisely (besides video for real estate). I was hoping to take all sorts of shots from macro to telephoto eventually; however, to start with I will probably just buy some basic lens ranges (>30, 50, 85) and buy additional lenses as I need them.
To be honest I have not considered a mirrorless, DSLRs seem to have a much greater variety in terms of lenses. But it does seems newer systems like the M43 are giving DSLRs a run for their money.
I was not aware that there were lenses made specifically for crop sensors. For example the Sigma that you mentioned at 8-16mm will be just that, 8-16mm, no focal length conversion necessary on an APS-C? If I can buy a crop camera and put the money saved into lenses, all the better. But I can buy a full frame if needed.
Also wanted to talk about AF real quick. In the other thread you mentioned you utilize AF 90% of the time. I read other photography forums and it seems most of them claim AF gets in the way most of the time. For example landscape and architectural people seem to find AF frustrating because of all the points of empty space causing the AF to be wrong the majority of the time. Curious on your thoughts here.
Thanks again
Thanks for the recommendation.
Pentax, Nikon, Sony, Fuji are all 1.5x crop.
Canon is 1.6x crop.
So if your fav is 50mm on FF, then look for a 35mm on APS-C to give you the 35mm equivalent.
AF is generally good on most cameras I've tried, especially in good light. It's low light were some cameras hunt for awhile before acquiring focus. Depends on the lenses used as well.
If your set on a DSLR over a Mirrorless system that can easy fit in a shoulder bag, then look at some of the smaller DSLR's like the Sony SLT's or Pentax K5. Still they all amount up once you start putting lenses on them, even more so with the FF lenses.
Pentax do a lot really small primes as well, although there not really that fast, they do keep the bulk down.
For me I've just gone for the middle ground and sold my DSLR and gone for the X-T1 with a couple of there great primes.
Yeah the D800 seems to cope with both well, id sooner take the Nikon DF with the D4 sensor over the D800.
I was more talking about specific styles/types, so like:
Sports?
Weddings?
Portraits?
Landscapes?
Cityscapes?
Interiors?
Low light bars/clubs with friends?
Low light exterior/nightscapes?
Pets/birds?
Vacation snapshots in daylight?
Long exposures, for waterfalls etc?
The specific sort of things you want to do will tend to dictate what sort of camera is best for you.
Also, what sort of budget do you have in mind?
Yeah, the M43rds lens lineup is very, very, very good and mature, a few lenses that are missing (extreme telephoto primes) are coming out soon. M43rds has more lenses (by a large margain) than any of the other Mirrorless systems, and more than APS-C specific lenses from Nikon or Canon by a large margin as well. Nikon/Canon have more FF lenses, but it comes do a point where its simply enough, and M43rds is there, with the only real lack ATM specialty tilt/shift lenses and very long lenses (over 600mm equivalent).
Consider that you probably won't own more than 5 lenses, 10 if you get really serious. Do you really need 200 options? Or will 50 suffice? http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html
A lot of people get confused about this. You do need to do the 1.6x or 2x crop conversion, but there are many lenses designed specifically for crop cameras so that you can buy the same standard-ish lenses regardless of the system.
A common misconception is also that for crop cameras, when you use wide angle lenses you will get more perspective distortion. This is totally false as well, distortion depends entirely on distance to subject, not focal length.
For instance, on a Canon/Nikon camera, you may want a 24-70/2.8, on a Canon 1.6x, you can get a 17-55/2.8 (27-88), and on M43 you get a 12-35/2.8 or 12-40/2,8 (24-70 and 24-80 respectively).
For an ultrawide lens you would get something like a 12-24mm on FF, 8-16mm or 10-20mm(13-28 and 16-31) on APS-C, or 7-14mm or 9-18mm on M43 (14-28 and 18-36).
Basically, to get the "fullframe equivalent focal length", just * the real focal length by the crop factor. 1.6*24 = 38mm, 2*17 = 35mm. Pretty much all the systems have the same basic focal lengths covered (though again, Canon, Nikon and M43 have very large lens lineups, Sony Alpha and Pentax K as well).
The biggest difference when it comes to different crop/sensor sizes, is that the smaller sensors give you less ability to control the depth of field. For that extra expense, weight, and bulk on a FF camera vs a M43rds, you can make the background 2 stops more blurry with the FF system. This can be both a pro and a con however, its great for the FF system if you always shoot wide open, however if you need to stop down (ie: to get ENOUGH in focus, which is a concern for many types of photograph) then you're throwing the advantage out the window a lot of the time. Similar with APS-C crop, but the difference is 1 and 1/3rd stop instead of 2.
So what the DOF/Focal length thing means is:
FF 50mm 1.4
APS-C 35mm 1.4 = 55mm 2.2
M43 25mm 1.4 = 50mm 2.8
In other worse, you can get the same DOF with a FF 2.8 zoom lens as you can with a M43rds 1.4 prime lens. Though again, the differences in DOF in actual use are often blown way out of proportion on internet forums. Much more important to DOF than lens aperture/equivalencies/etc is distance to subject, distance to background and overall composition.
If you shoot prime lenses, a 17/1.8, 25/1.4, and 45/1.8 prime on M43rds will give you enough DOF control/subject isolation for 95% of uses, and all three of those lenses are very small compared to most DSLR lenses.
This really, really depends on the camera, and exactly how you use it.
If you're shooting landscapes/architecture on a tripod and have time to sit and set up your focus manually, AF/MF doesn't make too big of a difference. Though in these situations you normal have a fairly wide lens, and you're stopping down to get the widest depth of field (most in focus) so nailing focus is extremely easy with AF or MF. I really wonder what people are doing if they have trouble with this sort of shooting.
It could be the camera, some lower end cameras have only a few focus points, mostly in the middle of the frame, which means you need to focus and recompose, which can introduce focusing errors in some situations. Better cameras have a large array of focus points spread over the entire frame (my EM1 has 81 focus points evenly spread).
Another issue is phase detect vs contrast detection focus. DSLRs have PDAF, which means there is a 2nd, completely separate sensor that does the focusing, this can introduce all sorts of focusing errors. Higher end DSLRs have AF micro-tuning options so you can tune the PDAF for specific lenses, but even this isn't particularly reliable. Generally higher end DSLRs have more accurate focusing, but google front/back focusing errors and you'll find page after page of people complaining about these focusing systems. The good part about PDAF is that it tends to be very fast(DEPENDING ON THE LENS, some are quite slow), and it tends to track moving objects very well, which is why it is popular in higher end DSLRs that are intended for shooting sports etc.
Contrast AF on the other hand, which most mirrorless cameras use, uses the actual sensor to do the focusing, which can be much, much more accurate (especially with faster lenses where focusing errors are most noticeable). You can also have more AF points since it works directly off the sensor, not a separate PDAF af unit. The drawback to CDAF is that it can be poor for tracking movement. These days the better mirrorless cameras have hybrid CDAF and on-sensor PDAF to help with tracking, like the EM1 and XT1, while not as good as your pro style Nikon D4 or Canon 1Dx etc, they are very good and suitable for all but the most demanding motion tracking. The latest M43 cameras have insanely fast AF as well, fast enough to catch motion in single AF mode. One of the biggest negatives with CDAF focusing is that, as it uses contrast detection on the image sensor to decide if something is in focus or not, it can be easily tricked by a distracting background element. This was more of an issue with older cameras/very large focus box areas, but the EM1 again for instance, I rarely ever have this problem. So its sort of a trade off, you'll get a totally out of focus shot with CDAF once in a while, and (when shooting fast primes) you'll get an endless stream of minor focus errors with DSLRs.
One last note on manual focusing: For faster lenses where you only have a small sliver in focus, it is extremely difficult to get right. MFing is not an easy task. For ultra wides and the like, it is very easy. The one MF lens I own is a Samyang 7.5mm fisheye lens, which gets set to F5.6 and infinity and pretty much everything is always in focus.
Also, Olympus M43 cameras for instance have in-body image stabilization, which means you can leave the tripod at home for everything but very long exposures (I can get 1 second exposures reliably sharp out of my EM1). All lenses are stabilized when using IBIS, even primes, and Canon/Nikon for instance have very few stabilized primes outside of long telephotos. To me this is a huge advantage, as again I can travel light, and take more photos. Too often when you're out shooting, if you see something cool and need to set up your tripod and fuss about, the moment has already passed. This is why I prefer AF over MF as well.
Here is a set I shot in Venice recently, all with EM1/EM5, no tripod, most of it cityscapes/architecture. All of these were shot very quickly, handheld while sight-seeing with a wife that yells at me if I take too long taking photos. If I had to get out my tripod, set up my focus manually, I probably would have taken like 10 total photos when I was there.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=16928919&sk=photos&collection_token=16928919%3A2305272732%3A69&set=a.10101681310252740.1073741859.16928919&type=3
Hehe, and I'de sooner take your XT1 over the DF which is a bit of an abomination of retro-styling-for-the-sake-of-it. With the DF you're still stuck with those big FF lenses, so might as well go D800/D610 and have a camera with ergonomics to match the lenses. =P
Yep, the XT1's design is really what the DF should have been. Plus, throw Fuji's excellent (and small) primes on the XT1 and give it to a capable photographer, and nobody will be able to tell the difference in output.
As far as styles: landscapes, cityscapes, interiors, low light exteriors nightscapes, pets (and birds eventually), macro.
Im not opposed to Mirrorless, but it seems relatively new compared to DSLR. As a computer enthusiast I try to "future proof" as much as possible, as futile as that is. But as you said M43 is a mature platform. Can mirrorless achieve the shallow depth of field that DSLR is known for? In addition anything I buy needs to be capable of producing good video.
Appreciate you taking the time to clarify and elaborate on AF and crop factor as well.
For landscapes, interiors etc, if you have the time and want to set up a tripod and all that, a larger DSLR with a high res sensor is going to give really good results. Assuming you don't mind the setup time and and aren't in a rush. If you don't care about the size/weight, a Nikon D7100, D610, D800 would be my recommendation here (Nikon has better dynamic range than Canon, which is very important for landscapes and such). Though a smaller mirrorless system is perfectly capable as well.
However, do you want to go out hiking? If so you don't want to carry a huge load. Are you going to drive to most places? Then the larger load is less of an issue. If you want to be mobile, a mirrorless system makes much more sense.
For birds (or fast pets, like running dogs) a camera with a sophisticated AF system is generally ideal. Canon 7D, Nikon D7100, Canon 5DIII, Canon 1DX, Nikon D800, Nikon D4, Pentax K3 etc. EM1 is about the best there is on the mirrorless end, but not up to par with DSLRs for AF tracking.
Macro, you can do macro with any decent interchangeable lens camera, no real concerns here.
DOF depends on a number of things. Sony and Fuji cameras have the same APS-C crop sensors as Nikon/Canon APS-C, so there is no difference in DOF there. Fuji especially with its 56/1.2 can take photos with DOF like a full frame camera with an 85/1.8, which is very, very narrow. A Canon 5D and an 85L or 135L can blur the background even more, but you're really at the "only 1 eyelash in focus" realm there, which is seldom useful.
With M43rds the ability to blur the background is a little less, but again it is really not nearly as big of an issue as the internet makes of it. The difference between M43rds and APS-C is 2/3rds a stop, which will be barely noticable except under the most anal-retentive examination.
Again DOF is mostly about how close your subject is to the camera, and how far the background is from the subject. Get close to your subject, and get some room between the background and you can take narrow DOF photos with basically any halfway decent camera. It gets really subjective though, the question is less "can crop cameras blur the background" and more "do you need to blur the background, or do you need to absolutely annihilate the background into a blurry mush"? Super narrow DOF is often used as a crutch or a replacement for good composition, personally, I'm trying to force myself to rely less on it and focus more on background elements and composition.
If you want to future proof, invest in lenses, regardless of the system. Camera bodies lose value instantly, while lenses tend to hold value very, very well.
Canon and Nikon are obviously not going anywhere, and IMO it would be a shock if anything happened to the M43rds system as it is supported by two major companies (Olympus and Panasonic) and quite mature at this point. Fuji X is still young but looks promising. Sony Alpha DSLRs look shaky, may be discontinued at any point, Pentax DSLRs have been shaky for a while (pentax was sold to Hoya, and then to Ricoh), Sony NEX/Mirrorless I wouldn't invest in, they make too many cameras and too few lenses, and change product strategies entirely too often.
So, the first thing to remember with video is that moreso than the camera itself, video quality depends on your lighting, your rig/how you stabilize it, how you set up focus pulling, how you record it(external recorder?) and all other very technical video stuff that is quite a bit less accessable to get in to than photography. Doing quality video work is hard as hell.
That said, a 5DII or 5DIII hacked with magic lantern stuff is a good choice. A panasonic GH3 (m43) is just about the best consumer DSLR style body you can get for video, or a hacked GH2 on more of a budget. The GH4 will be out soon which does 4K as well. Nikons are not particularly good for video, nor are Fuji, Pentax, etc. Sony is so-so. Olympus's IBIS is awesome for video, like a steadycam rig without the rig, but they have limited framerates/bitrates (no 24p).
Also for video you will not want to rely on AF, so adapted lenses are fine there, in fact generally preferred. High quality video lenses are MF only.
Available framerates, resolutions, compression type/codec quality, options for audio monitoring, options for add on equipment/audio ports etc, raw hdmi output, how susceptible the sensor is to jellyrolling, moire, all sorts of things like that.
I've been looking into dslr cameras as of late and was looking for a cheap and easy option for personal use. I came across [ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fujifilm-FinePix-S4500-Digital-Optical/dp/B006Q8VAR2/ref=sr_1_6?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1396981552&sr=1-6&keywords=slr+camera#productDescription"]Fujifilm FinePix S4500[/ame] for £140 & a second hand [ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000IKVOE8/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller="]Canon EOS 400D DSLR[/ame] for £140 as well.
I've looked at comparisons and "how to compare" guides but i'd appreciate some help from the obviously clued in people here. Managed to read 5 pages backwards skimming the posts ;')
Again you should post what you'll use the camera for and how much you wanna spend.
Ive got a wide enough variety of lenses to shoot pretty much anything and i know as long as im setting up the shot correctly the results are going to be great.
Yes the camera is big and heavy with the lens but actually if you have the right strap the weight isnt an issue. I recently went around hong kong island with my d600 with battery grip and with a 14-24mm f2.8 and my 50mm prime in my pocket and walked for 5 hours around the island and it not flat at all.. weight wise not a problem.
One very important factor the EQ mentions is that the lenses hold thier value incredibly well for nikon/canon ff format.. and that has given me comfort everytime ive purchased a new lens.
Id choose the D800 over the the Df actually.. and as for megapixels.. having loads of megapixels gives more cropping options in post which i like. So i wouldnt say its totally nonsense to have too much resolution, it gives you flexibility ..
My opinion is still the same entry level ff dslr..
EQ - ive got a good selection of lenses now and am really comfortable with my setup so as to not really have interest in mirrorless, im not saying that it isnt good, just not too high up the priority list right now.
Yea and for video.. what EQ said..
What are some brands that you would recommend in general for lenses. Sigma came up earlier so there is that example.
Also, as far as the interior shots of houses go, what effective focal length should I stay between (for example 15mm to 30mm)? It needs to be wide enough to take in all the information in the room, but not too wide.
Thanks again
Whoops on the bridge ;')
I'm looking at £100-£200 mark. General mostly personal photography, family life etc. Anything above 10mp is okay really. Video preferable but optional.
Yes, and if possiby, get to a store and try all of the ones you are interested in. Its very important for you to feel comfortable with how a camera feels in your hand and that you like the controls/interface.
First party lenses are always going to retain value the best.
Sigma, Tamron and Tokina are second tier lenses which are very good as well. Sigma lenses have a nasty habit of no longer working on new cameras because the reverse engineer the mount, however the latest ones have a USB mount you can buy to upgrade the firmware yourself.
Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander make very good manual focus lenses which hold value (or even gain over time).
I wouldn't really bother with any other manufacturers. Except for Samyang for MF only lenses. Samyang is a Korea company that makes awesome-tastic and cheap manual focus lenses. Their wides and fisheyes are very good, and they even make some great primes like 24/1.4, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4. Samyang lenses don't have great resale value because they tend to be so cheap in the first place.
Uhhh this really depends, best to pick up an ultra wide zoom somewhere in the range of 12-24mm or 16-35mm in FF terms and see how you feel about it. Its going to be subjective.
I have a T3i with a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens and a 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Zoom lens. And shoot with a tripod if need be.
Ideally looking for one around the +/- 250 dollar range but can go more if it is really worth it to do so. Trying to figure out what are the big things I should be paying attention to on lens still kind escapes me.
Canon EF 50mm 2.5 macro falls into that price range, but that is a 1:2 macro (which means it doesn't focus quite as close as a 1:1 macro, but still very close).
Tamron 90mm 2.8 also falls into that price range for a used copy, especially one of the older models (all are good). Its a 1:1 macro and at 90mm you get more working distance (you'll be further from your subject which is important for anything that moves, and you won't block your light).
Sigma 50mm 2.8 EX DG, 1:1 macro lens, similar to the Canon 50/2.5 but does 1:1. Beware older versions as they may not be compatible with DSLRs/only do 1:2. Used or maybe even new can be found in that price range-ish.
Sigma 70mm 2.8 EX DG, another 1:1 macro, is also a good bet, but probably in the $350-400 range used.
Macro lenses are almost universally extremely good lenses, with good, even sharpness across the frame, and are slow (and sometimes loud) to AF. Though many people stick to MF for macro lenses.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm
What eq said is right but actually shorter than 16mm can be really nice in interior spaces if controlled properly.
You'd probably be able to get something like a used Canon 1100d with a kit lens for around the £200ish mark.
the reason i picked it up was to do some nightsky/astro photography, which brings me to my question,
anyone got any expeience with that?
Astrophotography can be ridiculously expensive, what with the cost of equatorial mounts. You're going to need a solid tripod, and a mount that will factor in the rotation of the earth, otherwise you'll get long star trails with your long exposures. This can be a good thing if it is the effect you want, but if you want nice shots of the milky way, you'll need other tools than just a tripod.
A cheap way to do this is to make a DIY "Barn Door" mount. There are countless tutorials on how to make one, and from what I've seen, they work pretty well, and cost about 10$ to make. I have never delved into astrophotography myself yet however.
Also, it's a lot more complicated than just pointing your camera to the night sky, having a long 4-hour exposure and calling it done. What I've seen most people do is take hundreds of shorter exposures (2-4 minutes), and merge them together in PS afterwards. This allows for better control of the final result, and won't have your sensor overheating. Really long exposures (15-20+ minutes) cause your sensor to heat up, generating a lot of noise in your shot, even at ISO 100, especially at ISO 100. With a barn door mount, you'll eliminate the star trail blur and get a nice sharp result.
Avoiding light pollution is critical, but that goes without saying. Long exposures of the night sky anywhere near a city will just result in a big orange cloud of vomit.
I just recently learnt about the need for countering the rotation of the earth after a few test 10min shots. Besides lightpolution i had a ton of streaks, but also a ton perfectly clear crisp stars!
I will definitely have to look in to this barn door thing.
Personally I would go for a used T2i, T3i, T4i etc over the 1100D/T3, which is a stripped down T2i. Cost shouldn't be too much different.
For this price range one of these cameras makes sense, and then the EF 50mm 1.8 at some point in the future (usually about $120, dunno what it sells for there).
Be sure to activate any kind of Long-Exposure Noise Reduction feature your camera may have. If you have long star streaks, there is no way that you have nice sharp stars too. Those sharp stars aren't stars, but rather noise in your image caused by your sensor. This is where a quality camera body comes in handy!
But yeah i thought it was odd too, ill drop post the photo in question when i get home
And good call about the LE noise reduction, dont think i have it on.
BTW, would this be something i should turn off when i take regular photos? or is the camera intelligent enough to only use it for long exposures as the name suggests?
Definitely turn on LE Noise Reduction, I usually leave it on, the camera only makes use of it when you are shooting with exposures longer than 1 second. For normal use, it won't be taken into account. Bear in mind, LE Noise Reduction doubles the time it takes before you can see the photo you take. For example, you are shooting the night sky with a 4-minute exposure, LE Noise reduction will require 4 minutes to process the image and reduce the noise. Therefore, your camera will be unusable for a total of 8 minutes. Something to keep in mind if you are out late at night.
Multiple shorter exposure photos, merged together in post is often better than one really long exposure.
thanks again man!
The downside for me taking interior shots is I will have to drop a decent amount of cash on glass for an ultra wide due to the 2x crop factor, but that was to be expected.
My only concerns with the GH3 are:
Will the GH3 be able to take decent photographs? It has 16 mega pixels, but then again unless your blowing your image up to bill board size this should be enough.
Any recommendations for an ultra wide lens?
For ultra wide lenses you'd probably want to look at the Lumix 7-14mm F4 or the Zuiko 12mm F2. Samyang/Rokinon also make some good UWA lenses but they're MF.
I'm sure EQ will have more suggestions, but those were the lenses I was looking at when looking at switching to m43.
BTW, my X-T1 arrived today, unfortunately Lightroom doesn't look the best for processing the RAW files and people have been recommending PhotoNinja, anyone have any experience with it?
The GH3 really is one of the absolute best choices if you're serious about video, despite the smaller sensor size. Panasonic really has the video thing down.
M43rds glass can be a little more expensive, but you're going to have to pay a lot for a good UWA lens in any system.
Panasonic 7-14/4 is a really, really good lens. But you can't use filters with it. $700 used, $900 new. (Nikon's 14-24mm, which is equally as wide, costs $2000, though it is 2.8 vs 4.0).
Olympus 9-18mm/4-5.6 is significantly cheaper ($600 new, $450 used), lighter and smaller, but doesn't go as wide (only 18mm equivalent). Still very wide, just not as wide as the 7-14. Can take filters though.
Olympus 12mm 2.0 is a very nice, very small and light fast prime. Only 24mm equiv though which isn't really an ultrawide. Not a particularly cheap lens either at $600 or so.
Samyang 7.5mm 3.5 is a tiny, dirt cheap($250) and super sharp fisheye lens. Super wide but you get the fisheye distortion of course. Can't take filters either. Manual focus only but not really an issue with a FE.
I have all of these but the Olympus 9-18mm, and all are fantastic lenses.
My 7-14mm on 16mp EM1 sensor easily out-resolves my old Sigma 12-24mm lens on fullframe 24MP Sony A900. The Sigma was noticeably wider though.
The GH3 will take very good still images as well. ISO 3200 is decent, ISO 6400 is sometimes usable and ISO 12800 is really pushing it. If you shoot in extremely low light a lot an APS-C or FF camera will be a little better, but only if you always shoot wide open. If you need to stop down to get more in focus in low light, the bigger sensors lose the advantage.
You will want to look into lenses with image stabilization though, as it doesn't have IBIS like the Olympus M43rds cameras do (but then neither do Nikon, Canon, Sony NEX or Fuji X). Panasonic 12-35/2.8 is a very very good standard zoom. Panasonic 12-32 pancake is really cool as well, but its a slow kit lens so don't expect too much.
I've read the majority of this thread and it's been a massive help in trying to wade through all the lingo and technical aspects of looking into a body and lenses. It'd be nice to get some opinions from people who know what they're talking about before I make a decision on equipment.
What I'll be using the camera for is to:
a) See if I even enjoy photography
b) Take photos of everything I see but mainly of subjects that will most likely require a standard prime lens, I figure between a 35mm-50mm(56mm-80mm) prime would work for this. I don't really plan on taking pictures of landscapes and things of the like, I just want something that's close to what the human eye sees for now.
c) Use photography as a means to improve my understand of composition, light, color, etc.
d) Take texture reference photos and other general purpose photos.
Budget wise, I'm thinking around $1000, obviously the less I spend the better but I'd rather get a quality lens and body I'm comfortable with to help ensure I don't get discouraged because my lens is garbage and I hate the feel/features of the body.
At the moment, body wise I'm thinking between a Sony A-57 with a SAL35F18 lense. The SEL35F18 looks like a nice step up most likely but considering I don't even know if I'll enjoy snapping photos, and the fact that a cheaper lens that gets the job done for a beginner would be enough for now, I think it'd be smart to pass on it.
The other options would be a T2i or T3i with a EF 50mm f/1.8 II.
Or perhaps just getting a kit with one of these bodies would be better? I'm assuming I'm going to mostly use a prime to start out due to my desire to have my photos be similar to what the eye sees regarding fov and the smaller f-stop for lower light situations in comparison to a zoom lens but until I actually use a prime or a zoom, I'm just presuming here.
pardon the big size,
reading up on it, the way to go without motorized mounts is large aperture, superhigh iso and shorter exposure..which is exactly opposite to the pic above...and also not out your bedroom window in the middle of the town!
I wouldn't go with an A57 (despite what I've written earlier in this thread). I think Sony is soon going to kill off the A mount system entirely in favor of the Sony NEX/E mount system. Also, if you're going to go for a camera system that has an electronic viewfinder (which has its pros and cons over optical ons) you might as well go with a mirrorless camera and get a significantly smaller/lighter setup.
What I would suggest is an Olympus OMD EM10 or a Panasonic GX7, and for the lens, one of the following:
Olympus 17mm 1.8 (~35mm)
Olympus 25mm 1.8 (~50mm)
Olympus 45mm 1.8 (~90mm)
If you're going for just one prime I would go with the 25/1.8. Going with one prime I think is actually a very good idea as a starting kit, zooms tend to make you lazy until you really understand how focal lengths work. The EM10 + 25/1.8 comes in at slightly over your budget at $1100. Getting it with the kit zoom is only an extra $100 though, so something to consider. A zoom can be a good way to decide which focal lengths you like and which primes to buy in the future.
On the other hand, a used T2i and a EF 50/1.8 will cost way less, and you can use the extra money there to pick up a 24mm or 35mm lens. Though to me, something like an EM10, despite being a lot smaller, gives you a whole lot more camera than a Canon Rebel. IBIS, much more direct controls (the Rebel controls are purposely left very basic to get you to upgrade to a XXD or XD model), EVF offers live exposure and white balance preview (imo this is huge and not talked about very often, I get a much better idea of what my shot will look like with an EVF, plus the tiny/dark OVFs in rebels and similar cameras just suck), way more AF points, touch screen with focus point selection, tilty rear screen, super fast and silent single AF performance (a rebel and 50/1.8 are slow and loud to focus).
A Fuji EX1/EX2 and the 35/1.4 lens are also options to consider, but the EM10 and GX7 cameras are significantly faster in operation than these two. The Fuji XT1 is improved over the EX2, but thats $1300 body alone.
Yes I am generally leery of Sony these days. They make some very interesting camera bodies (see: Sony A7) but switch lens mounts/strategies so often (see: DSLR, SLT, E mount, FE mount) that its really hard for me to have long term faith in what they do. Recently they put out as many camera bodies as they do lenses, which is just a bad sign.
And this is coming from a Sony A mount shooter. I had two Sony bodies and about 9 high end A mount lenses, and the last two will hit eBay soon.
If Sony offers what you need in terms of bodies and lenses today, consider them, but don't try to think about what they will offer in the future, because nobody knows.
Sony does some very odd things. They had the #3 market share in DSLRs and decide to do the stupid SLT thing (use an EVF in a DSLR style body with a semi-tranlucent mirror that degrades image quality).
Then Sony NEX mirrorless APS-C system is doing quite well, and they divert all resources to Sony FE mirrorless system, and need to design all new lenses, which are basically as big as DSLR lenses (so no size/weight difference which is why NEX did well in the first place).
They don't really appear to have a clear goal. At least with Canon, Nikon, M43rds and even Fuji to an extent you know what you're getting into.
If I wanted a DSLR other than Canon/Nikon, I would get a Pentax.
If I wanted a Mirrorless, I would get a M43rd or a Fuji.
They do make some great stuff and like to shake the market up over Nikon/Canon who seem quite set in there ways, but if I were going Sony again, it would definitely be for the E mount stuff like the A7.
Canon/Nikon own like 80% of the market share for DSLRs, so they always come recommended, but like EQ says I think Pentax make some great cameras that beat both Canon/Nikon for price/features.
The Pentax K-5 II seems like a great body coupled with there limited primes. Smallish DSLR with IBIS and probably one of the best sensors for dynamic range in APS-C. Only problem is they lack a full frame upgrade path at this time.
I was considering a Pentax K-5 IIs before I switched to the Fuji and would still take a lot now if I was looking for a DSLR, but for now you just can't beat the image quality to weight comparison of mirrorless systems.
If you don't shoot sports and use crazy high ISO's then I would seriously look at mirrorless.
If you're thinking about Sony, I would go E mount or FE mount, though even then I seriously question the dedication to offering a full lens lineup (which M43 basically has today).
Canon and Nikon DSLRs are what most people use, what most professionals use, and are easy to recommend simply because, well, its all people generally know. They have the biggest systems, they have the best support network, and they make good, reliable products. But the also are the most conservative when it comes innovation, so when you buy a Canon/Nikon camera, you'll get a very good, but often basic camera. They also have very tightly defined product tiers, and the rarely push high end stuff down to the low end models, for fear that they will cannibalize their higher end sales.
The mirrorless cameras, such as M43, and Fuji X, do not have the same issues. They're young systems that have innovated and improved much more rapidly than anything Canon/Nikon have done since, well, since Canon/Minolta came out with autofocus SLRs back in the late 80's. Mirrorless cameras have gone from the point where they were nice upgrades over point and shoots but not really serious cameras (Oly EP1/EPL1 etc), to the point where they can replace a semi-professional DSLR for almost every use. They've made this progress all in the last 5 years or so, which is really cool to see, and I can't see any reason why they wouldn't continue to push the market.
Again back to Canon/Nikon, both have come out with half-assed mirrorless systems, the Nikon V system and Canon M system, the Nikon has really cool AF features, but both of these systems were intentionally crippled so they do not compete with their low end DSLRs (which they make most of their money on).
Nikon/Canon make some amazing cameras, like the D800, D4, D7100, 5DIII, 1DX, 7D, but pretty much everything other than these cameras have some serious omissions that you would expect to get when paying the price you do for a DSLR. You have to shell out over $1000 generally just to get two dial controls, its ridiculous. You have to buy at least a D7100 to get a Nikon body that will AF with Nikon's older AF lenses which is absurd (at least Sony and Pentax got this right). The high end cameras that have all the cool stuff that is common in a lot of mirrorless cameras at a lower price point (physical controls for all the basic functions, customization, etc) tend to cost quite a lot and be very large and heavy and just generally overkill for what most people need out of a camera.
I tried a bunch of mirrorless cameras early on and was never really satisfied. Then came the Olympus OMD EM5, which seemed to do everything that mirrorless cameras struggled with at the time, very high quality, weather sealed body, dual dial controls with a bunch of custom function buttons, image quality on part with most APS-C DSLRs, and a large, high quality electronic viewfinder. The only real weakness with that camera was AF tracking, which has been significantly improved in cameras like the EM1, XT1, and Sony A6000.
I originally got the EM5 as an alternate camera to use when I didn't want the bulk of my big DSLR gear. Then a funny thing happened, after about a year I had taken the EM5 on a number of trips, I would grab it every time I left the house and wanted a camera, and I realized that the DSLR gear just sat on the shelf. It does basically everything I did with my DSLR gear, and the things it didn't do, weren't worth the bulk of taking the big stuff with me. Then the EM1 came, and fixed the last few quirks of the EM5 for me (bigger/more comfortable grip, better controls, AF tracking, 1/8000 shutter, even bigger and better EVF, etc), the EM1 is easily competitive with a Canon 70D, Nikon D7100, even a 5DII, D700 etc provided you're not doing sports or extreme lowlight.
So all this adds up to me recommending mirrorless cameras to anyone but professional photographers these days.
The hardest part for me is that I don't know exactly what I'm looking for yet and what types of pictures I'll finally settle into taking (assuming I enjoy the hobby), so I know that what ever I get, I'll probably be happy with and will work for me. Still, I enjoy buying semi-quality equipment, regardless if I've been doing something for years or just getting into it.