Photography Equipment & Software Thread

[NecroMorrius]

Ahh ok it's just the way you've written it. None of the Canon primes below 200mm have IS, apart from the 100mm f2.8L Macro lens.

[iwan_canobi]

Makes sense really, its benefits aren't that major at wider focal lengths, especially with primes that go to f/1.8.

[TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap]

I'm sorry for being so anal. I wasn't being disparaging - it really is one of the best (zoom) lenses you can buy. I've actually ordered another one as a travel lens. I'd take it over the £1000+ new "L" version anyday.

No offence taken whatsoever - I missed that little "L" so it was right to call me out on it as it now seemed I was reviewing a lens I've never even used in my life.

[Zomby]

Just a small update from me to say I got my 20D the other day, I couldn't believe what condition it was in! Not a scratch on it still had all default settings set and judging by the file names only 2000 photos taken on it. Needless to say I'm very chuffed as I'm on a tight budget and I doubt I could of done much better with my 200 notes.

Next purchase is going to be a Canon EF 50mm f1.8 MK2 for portraits and close ups and possibly a budget 70-300mm like the Tamron 70-300mm f4/5.6 DI LD to give me a bit of reach, anyone got opinions on these lenses? I know they are cheap but as I said I'm on a budget I cant be spending shit loads £200 for both lenses absolute max.

I'm currently using the standard kit 17-55mm and to be honest the images do look a little washed out but that may be to do with the lighting when I took it out more than anything.

I need to get myself out in the countryside asap but I don't drive so it's a bit awkward, I don't like taking pictures of concrete

Anyway I'm sure I will be asking more technical questions over time but I have the info I need to do basic landscape shots now so it's a case of getting out there!

Thanks.

[NecroMorrius]

Makes sense really, its benefits aren't that major at wider focal lengths, especially with primes that go to f/1.8.

Precisely, if an aperture that wide doesn't provide enough light on a modern SLR at a fixed wide focal length, you've probably been buried alive

[Swallow]

Considering the other bodies you're looking at Fox I think you should discount the Sony A230. I have one and I'm very happy with it but it has a poor continuous drive mode (only 2 fps and if you're shooting RAW it locks up after a few shots [maybe because of my memory card though]) and no live view so it's definitely in a lower tier compared to the D90 etc. The mid-range Sony DSLRs reportedly have much better continuous drive (and live view) though.

If you haven't already, check out:

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/

if you think you may end up buying one new.

[The Fox]

Ok I think one last noob question then.

My other half (who will be the principle user of the camera) is sure she wants to get into photography enough to rule out the purchase of, say, a Canon S95 (which might have been a better option were it mainly for me). I think she's leaning towards an SLR, but I wondered if it was worth considering the Sony NEX5. I could get a new one for £360, and they seem to have a good selection of dedicated lenses planned, as well as the ability to use some of the alpha lenses in the mean time (and besides, the kit lens would probably keep us busy for a while anyway).

She has also come over all thrifty, and decided to set a budget of about £350, which as far as I can see essentially will restrict us to three options, if we want to get one at a good price by Friday:

1. New Canon 1000D for £350 with 18-55mm lens

2. New Sony NEX-5 for £360 with 18-55mm lens

3. Used Canon 450D for £480, with 18-55mm lens, Canon 50mm 1.8 lens, Sigma 70-300 lens, Raynox 250 macro conversion lens, battery grip, cases, and other miscellaneous crap. We'd almost certainly sell the extra lenses and some of the other stuff and just keep the kit lens, which would bring the cost down to more like £325 with the 18-55mm

She'll be going into Jessops tomorrow to test them out in the flesh, but are there any comments? Particularly interested in opinions on the first two, as they are not cameras that we've discussed so far.

[Alexlotl]

I personally don't understand the Sony NEX - the body size is comparable to m4:3 cameras, but as they've used the same size sensor (APS-C) as an entry-level DSLR, they can't achieve an equivalent reduction in lens size. You can't have your cake and eat it.

SONY NEX-5 with 18-55/3.5-5.6 lens by soelin, on Flickr

Even the kit-lens looks horribly out of proportion, and I saw one with a long lens attached the other week which looked like iPod glued to a pint glass.

If you fancy something smaller, make sure you check out the Olympus EPL-X models, and the Panasonic GF1, which has come down a lot in price lately - about £400 with kit on the high street.

[Nicky]

panasonic GF1

[The Fox]

I agree the NEX looks odd, but if the lens is still equivalent in quality to, say, a 1000D, then surely the point is increased portability, and possibly a bit more accessibility for beginners? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I have only done a cursory amount of research. if the NEX isn't going to take photos as good as the 1000D, that's a different matter).

A Panasonic GF1 is a bit over her budget. An Olympus E--PL1 would come int at the right sort of price though. Is that what they call a four thirds camera or whatever it is? What do they offer that the NEX doesn't then? And can you still swap in the same range of lenses and so on, or is it much more restricted? The thing that seemed good about the NEX was all the lenses available (maybe not as many as an SLR, but plenty to be getting along with initially).

[Mercury]

panasonic GF1

I'm selling mine if anyone is interested.

[Nicky]

i would be, but i've just spent all available funds on a guitar. CURSES

[The Fox]

I'm selling mine if anyone is interested.

How much? What are the chances of being able to post it today?

She might be interested if I can get some clarification on my queries in the previous post re: NEX vs GF1 etc vs full SLRs.

The thing that brought my attention to the NEX was some of the posts in Soong's ATF thread, specifically this one where ngchol says he got results comparable to his 550D 500D.

edit: depending on how good the video is, it might also enable us to sell our camcorder, as it seems not to have the autofocus 'issue' we talked about with the D90.

[Alexlotl]

Micro 4:3rds is a mount standard that's not bound to any one manufacturer. At present, Olympus and Panasonic are both making m4:3 cameras and lenses, and you can freely use the Olympus lenses on the Panasonic cameras, and vice versa. As there's two manufacturers in there at present, and it's the longest standing of the mirrorless platforms, it has the largest range of lenses. Other manufacturers may enter the platform - I think Tokina are already starting make lenses.

Here's Thom Hogan's write up of the current mirrorless scene, which includes what lenses are currently available (and are coming) for each platform. Thom's a Nikon man, but in my experience one of the more objective commenters out there. Although when your competition is Ken Rockwell...

If I was going mirrorless, I'd get a GF1, although I like the idea of an Olympus as my Grandad used to shoot with an Olympus OM. But I'm not going mirrorless (at least, not yet), not least as I'm stony broke.

By all means try the NEX - I've not used it personally, just think it's a weird, weird collection of design choices.

[Alexlotl]

As Thom says in there, the m4:3 cameras use a smaller (but still relatively large) sensor (4:3rds sensor), while the NEX and the Samsung use APS-C size sensors, same as most consumer/prosumer DSLRs.

Crash course on sensor size

Roughly speaking, the larger the sensor, the better the camera will perform in low-light, and the greater range of Depth-of-Field (the slice of the photo that's in focus) can be achieved. The smaller the sensor, the less large the lens needs to be to achieve a given focal length, and the more noise (speckling, etc) or noise reduction (smoothing, detail loss) you'll see in photos, particularly low light ones.

* Full Frame cameras have a sensor the same size as a 35mm film negative.

* APS-C cameras have a slightly smaller sensor.

* 4:3rds cameras have a sensor roughly half the size of Full Frame

* Premium P&S like the Canon S95 and Panasonic LX5 have sensors just under half the size of 4:3rds

* General P&S cameras have absolutely miniscule sensors.

Sensor size comparison 500D, Olympus E-P1, Canon G10, EOS 5D MII by Peter Lueck, on Flickr

Here's where it gets fun - the focal length of a lens is always listed in 35mm (full frame) terms, but depending on the sensor size, you have to apply a multiplier to get the effective focal length (sometimes called 35mm equivalent).

If we have a theoretical 50mm lens which would fit on cameras with all three sensor types, it would be...

* 50mm on Full Frame

* 75mmish on APS-C (1.5x or 1.6x multiplier, depending on whether you're Canon, Nikon, Sony or Pentax)

* 100mm on 4:3rds (2x multiplier)

The lens hasn't changed sizes, but we have three different effective focal lengths! This is why you can get pocketable P&S cameras that are capable of 500mm focal lengths in a relatively small lens - the sensor is so small that it doesn't require that much glass to achieve an effective 500mm focal length. The trade-off is that they usually look pretty shitty due to all the noise and the poor quality glass.

In summary:

* As the m4:3rds cameras use a smaller sensor, they can achieve quite decent focal lengths (e.g. 400mm on the Panasonic 45-200mm lens - remember the 2x multiplier!) in a relatively small bit of glass. The Sony will need larger lenses to achieve this.

* As the Sony has a larger sensor, it will be able to offer better low-light performance and potentially higher overall image quality. But it's not all about IQ, or we'd all be using Foveon ;-)

That said, the main thing about a camera is that you like using it and don't want to throw it out of the window, so I'd get into a shop and do some man-handling of them. As Thom says, the Sony's handling will either sell the camera to you, or make you hate it.

(P.S. Yes, I'm aware I'm generalising, and intelligent sensor design/noise handling can obviate the natural advantage of a larger sensor, and intelligent lens design can allow for smaller glass, but the above is all broadly true)

[The Fox]

Useful stuff

That link was brilliant, thank you. It sounds like she might need to have a play with the Sony to check out the interface, as the reviewer there didn't like it.

As I said, a new GF1 is out of her price range at £500 sadly. The Olympus is a lot cheaper (about £380), but has a worse LCD and it's apparently quite easy to fudge a key and accidentally change settings. So I think it's worth her having a play with one of them too to see how bad those issues are.

edit re: NEX -- in the other thread ngchol posted this:

Sorry g wings, but that's wrong - you will get SLR-like depth of field with a NEX-5 as it has the same sensor size (APS-C) as cameras such as the 500d. It's a marked improvement on the Micro Four Thirds sensors. If you don't believe me, just search for "NEX-5 bokeh" on Flickr.

This didn't seem to be reflected in Thom's article. Is the difference between NEX and M4/3 really that great for DoF stuff?

edit2: if video recording on the NEX is decent it would give us the option of selling our camcorder, which the 1000D would not. Do the Micro 4/3rd models record decent video with autofocus and so on?

[NecroMorrius]

Nggggh I wrote a big post and the page crashed when I went to post it.

In a nutshell, I said that despite the entry level quality and specs of the 1000D, it would maybe be the best option for learning to use a traditional SLR (my girlfriend has been using one for the past six months and found it really easy to learn with) and though the 450D is ever so slightly better in terms of specs, you'd have a warranty and a highstreet shop to take the 1000D back to if anything went wrong. The lenses you bought would be transferable to a new body if you started to feel you've outgrown the camera. It's not particularly big or heavy, it's lighter than the NEX5 surprisingly.

If you aren't so much interested in learning to use an SLR as you are simply achieving SLR-like results (ie DOF and shutter speed control) with a more convenient form factor, the NEX might be a better bet. You'll still learn about aperture and shutter speed etc, but whereas SLR controls are fairly transferable from one manufacturer to another, the NEX has quite a strange UI which is unlike anything I've seen before.

I'd also recommend getting into a shop and having a play with both. Both have good points and bad points, and are very different. With any luck you'll know instinctively which you prefer.

[PopeSmokesDope]

Well this is interesting, currently sat in the office, in my suit, with cow shit all over my shoes....

Saw a nice photo opertunity on the way in and only discovered half way in that the field was covered in cow shit!

[Swallow]

I'd second the sentiment that the 1000D is the best option but obviously you may find the NEX5 to be exactly what you want.

[anecdote]My sister and her husband were looking for a "DSLR" around Christmas, primarily to take pictures of their daughter, with a stricter budget of £300. I recommended (when I was asked, obv) the A290 as they would be able to borrow my lenses and put off the cost of them until they knew exactly what they wanted. I'm now getting grumbled at by my brother-in-law because they bought it and he's not getting on with it/is struggling to learn the manual controls. He reckons they should have got a Panasonic G10 or something now because "it would have been easier to use and given better pictures". I'm gonna keep my mouth shut in future and let people make up their own minds.[/anecdote]

[Dapple]

I personally don't understand the Sony NEX - the body size is comparable to m4:3 cameras, but as they've used the same size sensor (APS-C) as an entry-level DSLR, they can't achieve an equivalent reduction in lens size. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Is that right? The NEX 18-55 and the equivalent Olympus / Panasonic lenses seem to be the same size.

[gerald.d]

Here's where it gets fun - the focal length of a lens is always listed in 35mm (full frame) terms, but depending on the sensor size, you have to apply a multiplier to get the effective focal length (sometimes called 35mm equivalent).

Excellent post Cloney, but slight - perhaps admittedly pendantic - correction:

The focal length of a lens is given as the focal length of the lens. It has nothing to do with 35mm/FF terms at all*.

Re sensor sizes, apologies, but I couldn't resist:

(*

/edit Perhaps more simply explained by a real world example. The Canon EF-S 10-22 lens is indeed a zoom lens whose focal length can vary between 10mm and 22mm. The focal length is an intrinsic quality of the lens design, and has nothing to do with the sensor size of the camera it's used on. The lens for a FF camera that gives the same field of view is the 16-35)

[g wings]

Excellent post Cloney, but slight - perhaps admittedly pendantic - correction:

The focal length of a lens is given as the focal length of the lens. It has nothing to do with 35mm/FF terms at all*.

Re sensor sizes, apologies, but I couldn't resist:

Haha, thats brilliant...

<walks off in quiet envy>

[NecroMorrius]

I've discovered an entire 5x7 camera system downstairs with a zeiss lens attached. Going to nick it for restoration.

What Cloney said is still correct Gerald, the focal length of the lens is the focal length of the lens regardless of camera, but that focal length is magnified on any sensor that isn't equivalent to 35mm. When he says '35mm/FF terms' he simply means that a FF camera displays the advertised focal length of a lens, whilst cropped sensors do not. You're both right really, at least the way I've read your respective posts.

[The Fox]

The 1000D can't do video though, right? So we'd definitely need to hang on to our camcorder. I mean we could potentially sell that for £300 if we got something that could do good enough video (I gather the video on the NEX-5 is pretty decent, albeit not 1080p), so that might have a bearing on her decision. It certainly would if it was my decision anyway!

[NecroMorrius]

The 1000D doesn't do video. If the camcorder is worth £300ish you might as well sell that, add the £300ish to your £350 budget and buy something for £650. Ahh decisions decisions! My girlfriend bought the 1000D rather than a compact because she has an iPhone 4 which does 720p video, which she deemed good enough for keepsake video clips etc.

[The Fox]

Haha, well yeah I guess she could do that, which would bring her into 550D or D3100 territory (or a used D90). Of those though, the D90 doesn't sound like a suitable camcorder replacement with the lack of autofocus in video, and from the YouTube clips I've seen, the autofocus on the D3100 looked awful -- constantly adjusting itself for no apparent reason, and seemingly worse than the NEX-5 or E-PL1.

The 550D seemed to be a viable camcorder replacement, but they're £620 new with a kit lens. I can't see her going for that as it's a bit too 'risky', although it'd be something I'd seriously consider if I was buying.

The other option of course would be to get the NEX-5 or E-PL1, and if the video is good enough, invest the money from the camcorder into lenses. You wouldn't have that option with the 1000D.

Ultimately though, I think it'll come down to what feels the best when she has a look this afternoon.

Thanks for everyone who has helped. I'll let you know what she plumps for in the end.

[Dingleberry]

I've discovered an entire 5x7 camera system downstairs with a zeiss lens attached. Going to nick it for restoration.

What Cloney said is still correct Gerald, the focal length of the lens is the focal length of the lens regardless of camera, but that focal length is magnified on any sensor that isn't equivalent to 35mm. When he says '35mm/FF terms' he simply means that a FF camera displays the advertised focal length of a lens, whilst cropped sensors do not. You're both right really, at least the way I've read your respective posts.

At the risk of sounding like a massive pedant, the cropped sensor uses the middle of the image circle so narrows the field of view, but does not magnify the focal length or alter the perspective. My Sigma 12-24mm is a 12-24mm on my 50D APS-C digital camera or 50E 35mm film camera, it's just the field of view that changes. 35mm equivalence is a useful guide only if you're familiar with the fields of view provided by the 35mm system.

Yes, I really should get out more.

And where on Earth do you work that has large format cameras mouldering in the basement?

[Nicky]

nikon 3100 is good at video with autofocus. again, around your top budget, especially if you were to sell the video camera

http://gizmodo.com/5616241/nikon-d3100-the-first-dslr-with-real-video-autofocus

[The Fox]

Nicky - the autofocus on the D3100 seemed a bit...mental. Like in this video, it's all over the place:

If it's going to keep adjusting like that for no real reason, and focusing on weird things, I don't think it'd work as a replacement for my Canon HG20.

If it weren't for the fact that, at least from the YouTube vids I saw, the video seemed to be not that great, it'd be preferable to the 550D simply due to being over £100 cheaper. But if it can't replace the camcorder then it's not an option, as it doesn't fit into her £350 budget.

[NecroMorrius]

At the risk of sounding like a massive pedant, the cropped sensor uses the middle of the image circle so narrows the field of view, but does not magnify the focal length or alter the perspective.

Yes, that's why I said 'equivalent', and not 'actual'. We all understand that a focal length is multiplied by the crop factor to produce what can be thought of as an equivalent focal length. I don't know why people keep insisting on wording it differently as if anyone here (besides maybe Fox ) doesn't get it. Nobody is implying that the physical focal length is mechanically changing like a Michael Bay Transformer when you stick it on different sensors.

Though that would be quite cool.

If it's going to keep adjusting like that for no real reason, and focusing on weird things, I don't think it'd work as a replacement for my Canon HG20.

Welcome to DSLR video! That's what it does. At least, if you don't tame it. You have three ways of getting rid of it - manually focus all the time, prefocus your shots, or film with an aperture small enough that everything is in focus and it doesn't need to keep adjusting, but you need a decent amount of light for that. It does look like the guy shooting has just picked it up and doesn't know what he's doing though.