Photography Equipment & Software Thread

[Alexlotl]

Interestingly, Fuji are part of the 4:3rds consortium, but whether that'll ever come to anything is up for debate.

The X100 doesn't really appeal to me. I used to have the Sigma DP2, which is a similar beast - compact, APS-C sensor, pin-sharp f/2.8 normal lens (42mm equivalent), etc. I found the fixed lens a bit limiting, though, and found myself endlessly craving something a bit wider. I tended to chuck it in my bag in situations where I didn't want to lug around my DSLR, and it wasn't really flexible enough to cope with the variety that entailed. Much happier with the Olympus XZ-1 in that regard - being able to isolate things with a bit of mild-tele zoom feels so luxurious.

@AlanStock - Getting one of Lightroom or Aperture will massively improve your workflow. I think you can trial both for 30 days or so to see if they suit. I went with Aperture (Mac only), partly because it's super cheap (£45) on the Apple App Store these days, and partly because I preferred it to Lightroom on the basis of those demos. I honestly can't imagine not having it, now.

[Alan Stock]

Cheers for the answers folks!

[NecroMorrius]

It seems that a Canon EF 24-70 f2.8 II is definitely on the way.

I'm still eager for some concrete news on a 5D MkIII. I desperately want a full frame 7D.

[Rev]

It seems that a Canon EF 24-70 f2.8 II is definitely on the way.

I'm still eager for some concrete news on a 5D MkIII. I desperately want a full frame 7D.

You won't get one, as the only difference between the best of the 5D2 and the 7D and a 1DS would then be the case and maybe 5mp. For double the price, that'd be a stupid purchase and Canon won't want their expensive camera to look like a rip-off. So it'll be some kind of fudged middle-ground. Or it'll be something completely different more suited to video work.

I don't know. But it won't be the best bits of both combined.

[NecroMorrius]

Burst etc will take a hit. I just want the 7D focus system on a full frame.

The specs which keep popping up are:

26.4 million effective pixels

ISO expandable to 102,400

19 point AF system, 3 cross-type points

DIGIC 5

4.9 fps continuous shooting

63-zone iFCL metering

1.04 million dot LCD

Improved camera grip

Improved pentaprism, approximately 100% frame coverage

released mid-year

[Rev]

26.4 million effective pixels - Pointless. 22->26 is a tiny upgrade.

ISO expandable to 102,400 - Probably pointless, unless the 25600 performance is much, much better.

19 point AF system, 3 cross-type points - Nice, but I have got used to the shittiness of the focusing system. It's not great, but it's predictable - and I have only ever used the centre point anyway.

DIGIC 5 - Probably a good thing. Unless it overheats.

4.9 fps continuous shooting - Meh.

63-zone iFCL metering - See focusing, really.

1.04 million dot LCD - Small meh.

Improved camera grip - Wouldn't be hard.

Improved pentaprism, approximately 100% frame coverage - Nice.

released mid-year - Urk.

I do hope they make changes to the body - things like the battery/card/USB/etc. bits are utter, utter crap and they will all definitely break with use. I really shouldn't say that about a ~£2k camera.

Speaking of which, I insured all my junk the other day. £290 a year to cover £4700 of stuff, pro with Photoguard including in car and in the EU. Sadface.

[Talvalin]

It seems that a Canon EF 24-70 f2.8 II is definitely on the way.

I'm still eager for some concrete news on a 5D MkIII. I desperately want a full frame 7D.

You and me both. I keep having to resist the urge to run out and buy a 5D or a 7D every time I see someone with a better camera than me (which seems to be quite often now that I'm travelling and regularly seeing people touting SLRs).

[Talvalin]

Speaking of which, I insured all my junk the other day. £290 a year to cover £4700 of stuff, pro with Photoguard including in car and in the EU. Sadface.

Ouch. If you don't mind answering, what kit does that all that cover?

[Liamness]

Just got the GF1 + 20mm pancake. The seller neglected to send the lens with a rear cap, or the body with any kind of protection over the sensor at all. Well, they got here alright anyway, so who cares. It doesn't feel a flimsy as I thought it might, very nice to see it's mostly metal. Ergonomically it's really not great compared to the 400d I'm swapping it for, and the menus and general user experience leave something to be desired compared to the Canon cameras I'm used to. Bit odd seeing as I've used the TZ series of compacts before and got along with them perfectly. Still I'm sure I probably just need to adjust a bit, then I'll be fine. Focusing 'by wire' will take some getting used to. The feel of the focus ring is a bit wierd, like there's grit under there or something. Maybe there is.

AF isn't as fast as it was on the 400d, but it's very consistently quick enough to not bother me. It doesn't hunt for ages. Generally speaking its very snappy, performance is on a par or slightly better than the 400d. Video quality seems perfectly adequate, and I'm off to apply a hack which ups the bitrate so it could get better. Of course it goes without saying that it's bleeding tiny, and any slight compromise is quickly forgotten because it's so small. The sheer convenience means I might actually use it.

[Rev]

Ouch. If you don't mind answering, what kit does that all that cover?

5dmkII+24-105mm

Sigma 50mm 1.4

Sigma 12-24mm

Sigma 100-300mm F4

Canon 580EXII

Canon 230EX

Manfrotto...something and a head. £130ish.

Then a few miscellaneous things, like GorillaPod SLR Zoom, Canon 50mm 1.8, lighting bits, bags, filters etc. I bought the 3 Sigma lenses second-hand, but had to provide the full purchase price for them - the 100-300mm is insured for £900 and I paid £475, for instance. That didn't help, but really it's just one of those "it all adds up" things. I bought the flash a couple of months ago, but the rest is almost a year old (in my posession at least) so I was starting to forget how much it cost.

I have now been reminded.

[rundll]

Well, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic (and Leica, sort of) have all got their before Fuji so it's not particularly new. It's nice to have a viewfinder, but the main benefits of it are things that have been doing well for a while. I agree with Gerald though that I can't see Canon launching a fixed-lens one, nor can I see them risking launching a new fitting at the moment.

If I was them I'd bring out something like the NEX and a range of EF primes similarly sized and priced to the 50mm f1.8, but slightly easier to focus. They'd appeal for video use for 550D owners as well as portability then. I think that is a bit of an ambitious plan though.

The push to better quality compacts is fairly well established and welcome. I guess the difference for me is twofold. One, is an aesthetic point, the X100 retro styling nod. Rugged. Manual controls. I like that. Two, an optical viewfinder. I can barely express enough how important that is to me now. Holding up a screen in the air just feels so wrong. Too bad it isn't though the lens, but that would be almost impossible to do.

Canon are fairly conservative. Maybe they're not interested in high quality compacts given the already have the G12 / s90.

Though they were first on the cheap dSLR trip.

The HD video take-up certainly took them by surprise. I thought I saw some canon 'blue ring' video lenses announced recently? A market reaction of sorts. (though I can't find anything online...might have been april fools or something)

This will be a slightly annoying suggestion...But...Get Lightroom 3. It's very much worth the money and it'll make your life much, much easier - Photoshop is for editing images, going through and sorting out a weekend's 500 photographs is a nightmare - with Lightroom it's a pleasure. Plus you can upload to Facebook and Flickr directly.

This. Or Aperture if you prefer it. And have a mac.

[Rev]

The push to better quality compacts is fairly well established and welcome. I guess the difference for me is twofold. One, is an aesthetic point, the X100 retro styling nod. Rugged. Manual controls. I like that. Two, an optical viewfinder. I can barely express enough how important that is to me now. Holding up a screen in the air just feels so wrong. Too bad it isn't though the lens, but that would be almost impossible to do.

I'm almost certainly going to buy one, so I've been keeping a very firm eye on it...I just don't think those advantages that the X100 have will change how Canon or Nikon approach the problem at all - just like they'll ignore Leica too. They'll be aiming at the NEX/PEN/GF.

[Rev]

Don't go there. I need to check my cover - I went out to do my yearly bluebell shoot and realised I was hoofing well over two grand's worth of stuff. Never mind what was back at home. At the moment I'm not insured at all.

Feels good, man. Well, better at least - I was covered on my home insurance if I pretended the mugger wouldn't take my phone as well as my camera and I only took out camera, kit lens and little flash. As soon as I took anything else there was a vague feeling of terror. I packed all my stuff into a single bag on Friday just before setting off out and thought...No. And insured before leaving.

Until that point I'd never even made a note of the serial numbers on my kit, so that is an improvement if nothing else.

It's got to be said, three hundred quid a year for hopefully no reason at all does hurt, but if something does happen (and they do come through) then I'll be glad of it I guess.

[NecroMorrius]

26.4 million effective pixels - Pointless. 22->26 is a tiny upgrade.

ISO expandable to 102,400 - Probably pointless, unless the 25600 performance is much, much better.

19 point AF system, 3 cross-type points - Nice, but I have got used to the shittiness of the focusing system. It's not great, but it's predictable - and I have only ever used the centre point anyway.

DIGIC 5 - Probably a good thing. Unless it overheats.

4.9 fps continuous shooting - Meh.

63-zone iFCL metering - See focusing, really.

1.04 million dot LCD - Small meh.

Improved camera grip - Wouldn't be hard.

Improved pentaprism, approximately 100% frame coverage - Nice.

released mid-year - Urk.

Speaking of which, I insured all my junk the other day. £290 a year to cover £4700 of stuff, pro with Photoguard including in car and in the EU. Sadface.

Someone with a camera has something disparaging to say about the model that supersedes theirs? Never! The 19 point AF system from the 7D is a massive improvement over the stock 5D system. I'd take a reduction in burst if it meant combining full-frame with the 7D AF system. It's brilliant.

Not sure where you insured, I used photoguard, it's about £13 a month for 'pro' full coverage up to £10k, worldwide. never tried to make a claim though...

[Nicky]

Morrius you spaz, he said in his post - it was with photoguard. And yeah the price climbs when you add car and EU cover

[Rev]

Someone with a camera has something disparaging to say about the model that supersedes theirs? Never! The 19 point AF system from the 7D is a massive improvement over the stock 5D system. I'd take a reduction in burst if it meant combining full-frame with the 7D AF system. It's brilliant.

Not sure where you insured, I used photoguard, it's about £13 a month for 'pro' full coverage up to £10k, worldwide. never tried to make a claim though...

I don't know, those don't seem exciting to me. I'll almost certainly upgrade as it makes more* financial sense - the II will probably drop a bit on the day the III it comes out, but will continue dropping and be at its lowest long before the IV comes out. Assuming I can spread the III out on interest free credit again, it won't be that painful. Especially if I stay with the 24-105 and get III body only.

But I'm pretty sure I'll still only use centre point focusing.

Yeah, I'm with photoguard, with EU and in car coverage. And I believe that adding more named items over £100 alters the price too.

*Well, not much less financial sense. Considering you get a new camera.

I'll get onto it this weekend. I'm assuming I can DD it rather than one full payment ?

Sort of. The DD has 25.9% APR on it, so I'd have paid £30 more paying it that way. Bit annoying.

[T Pot]

Brilliant! My local Jessops has got one Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 Di II VC Lens left in stock (Reduced to £299 fro about £450). It's being held until friday for me. Happy days!

Right. Bonus, I have managed to raise a little bit more money than I thought I would have. So I can actually increase my budget to about £450 now.

Anyway, would you suggest I still go with that lens or something else? I'm after something that will give me a nice wide angle, but can also reach further than my 18-55kit lens. I'm a bit sick of having practically no zoom at all.

[NecroMorrius]

Morrius you spaz, he said in his post - it was with photoguard. And yeah the price climbs when you add car and EU cover

I've got car and EU cover

[Rev]

Right. Bonus, I have managed to raise a little bit more money than I thought I would have. So I can actually increase my budget to about £450 now.

Anyway, would you suggest I still go with that lens or something else? I'm after something that will give me a nice wide angle, but can also reach further than my 18-55kit lens. I'm a bit sick of having practically no zoom at all.

Buying one lens that does everything is rarely a good idea. Buy a Canon 70-300mm and then save towards a replacement for the kit lens, perhaps something like the Tamron 17-50mm.

IMHO. Etc.

I've got car and EU cover

How many named items did you have?

[Cheeko]

Finally took the plunge and got myself a 600D for shooting video with. woohoo!

I've been asked to make some short films/mini documentaries for the National Trust which I'm super excited about, however all I have at the moment lens wise is a 50mm. The films could be anything from countryside, old houses to insects so I'm looking to get something to cover the bases for now as I have next to no budget and then upgrade as I aquire the funds.

I'm thinking the canon efs 55-250 which you can get for less than £140, do you guys think I could get away with just having a set of close up lens attachments for that to cover any close up stuff or can you recommend any cheap macro lenses that sit in the sub 50mm range?

Thanks!

[Liamness]

I doubt you'll get anything in that price range that is genuinely 'macro', i.e. closer than 1:1 magnification. I think either a closeup lens or extension tubes are probably the best way to go. I've looked for the latter before on ebay but never took the plunge, they're usually quite cheap but be careful to check they have electrical contacts, or AF confirm and aperture control won't work. Congrats on the commissioning too, let us know how it turns out!

[Cheeko]

Yeah, it wouldn't have to be anything closer than 1:1 actually, on a crop sensor camera 1:1 is plenty big enough if you can get close enough.

[Dapple]

Having nothing wider than 50mm would be a bit restrictive, wouldn't it? What about something like a 18-200mm? The Canon version's pushing £400 but the Tamron can be had for under £200...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0007XD4LC/ref=asc_df_B0007XD4LC2704860?smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&tag=googlecouk06-21&linkCode=asn&creative=22206&creativeASIN=B0007XD4LC

[Rev]

The Tamron 70-300mm is a bit crap, but it's cheap (you should get one for £100ish) and it does have a macro setting. It might be worth looking at, but I'd not go as far as recommending it.

Video and variable aperture zoom lenses aren't a great combination though, it has to be said. You can't zoom in without the image getting darker and I *think* some lenses alter the aperture when focusing too.

Having nothing wider than 50mm would be a bit restrictive, wouldn't it? What about something like a 18-200mm? The Canon version's pushing £400 but the Tamron can be had for under £200...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0007XD4LC/ref=asc_df_B0007XD4LC2704860?smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&tag=googlecouk06-21&linkCode=asn&creative=22206&creativeASIN=B0007XD4LC

The Canon 18-200mm is, in a polite way, crap. I used one almost exclusively for a week once and by the end I would have happily thrown it into a river - I just wasn't getting the results I wanted at all from it. It's not an improvement on the bog standard 18-55mm IS and when the price puts it into competition with a second-hand 70-200 f4 (which, incidentally is the long-term answer to this question) it's a very strange purchase.

I've not used the Tamron version. I'd hesitate as it's a big range, but I'd also suspect it can't be worse than the Canon version.

[Cheeko]

Ah, nice suggestion, excuse my ignorance but what's the deal with a lens with that kind of range then, I presumed you'd either have to have a telephoto style lens for longer range shooting and then a wide angle macro for the closer range stuff.

Will that do both jobs then? Or is that designed to be used at a closer range even at the full 200mm? I'm presuming you get more barrel distortion on that kind of range?

[Rev]

Ah, nice suggestion, excuse my ignorance but what's the deal with a lens with that kind of range then, I presumed you'd either have to have a telephoto style lens for longer range shooting and then a wide angle macro for the closer range stuff.

Will that do both jobs then? Or is that designed to be used at a closer range even at the full 200mm? I'm presuming you get more barrel distortion on that kind of range?

Well, no - it's designed to work at both lengths, it's just a very technically difficult feat to get a lens that goes from wide to narrow (two very different tasks, as far as shaping light is concerned) and get image quality anywhere near as good as two lenses covering the same range (like, 17-55mm and 70-200mm, for instance). The best example is this one:

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/28768/Show.html?tduid=26ebef7bcf40dbad660076687e84f613&url=http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/28768/Show.html

£2.2k, Canon, marked as an L lens...and a bit rubbish when compared to a good wide-angle lens, a good zoom lens, etc. I wouldn't consider buying one.

I think you're a bit confused with Macro too. You don't want a small focal length (like 18mm) as that shows a very wide area, you want to see a quite specific area when you're doing Macro. There doesn't exist an 18mm Macro lens - the one Canon would like to sell you is 100mm, which is about right unsurprisingly.

[Liamness]

Ah, nice suggestion, excuse my ignorance but what's the deal with a lens with that kind of range then, I presumed you'd either have to have a telephoto style lens for longer range shooting and then a wide angle macro for the closer range stuff.

It's a compromise for convenience's sake. It will not be as good at the wide end as a dedicated wide zoom, or as good at the tele end as a tele zoom. Your 50mm will wipe the floor with it at the same focal length. Personally, I think the whole point of owning an interchangeable lens camera is to interchange the lenses, so why you'd get a jack of all trades beats me.

Given that the 50mm is about equivalent to 80mm on a crop camera, which is still a little short for macro work, I think an extension tube would be ideal. It will let you focus closer and increase magnification. This set on ebay looks interesting, though obviously I can't vouch for it's quality.

[Cheeko]

Ah okay, yeah, I misunderstood about the macro thing.

That 70-300 looks decent, I avoid zooming whilst shooting and I can deal with non-optimal glass quality as these shorts will be streamed on the National Trust website, it's not going to be HD.

So I'd still like to pick up something wider, sub 50mm that I can use for shooting in more confined spaces, any cheap end recommendations in that area? (the 17-50 tamron?)

When I get a budget together the canon 70-200 2.8 is where I want to be.

[Rev]

Yeah, that's a good lens. Maybe a Canon 17-40mm if you can find a nicely priced second-hand one. Also a good lens.

[Liamness]

So I'd still like to pick up something wider, sub 50mm that I can use for shooting in more confined spaces, any cheap end recommendations in that area? (the 17-50 tamron?)

You mean the very lens I happen to be selling in the trading folder? Umm, probably best to ask someone else's opinion on that though I guess.