Am I right in thinking that a full frame camera would mean that a 100mm focal length lens would be equivalent to a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera? So this would make it much more expensive to get say 300mm worth of zoom on a full frame camera? Not to mention heavier and larger?
Indeed, but some would say it is worth it for the reasons above (i.e. sharper, better bokeh/shallower DoF, less noise in low light).
I'm happy with my APS-C size sensor and DX lenses, but then my own hobby photography doesn't justify pin sharp high-end lenses.
some would say it is worth
Yeah, gear freaks, genuinely good photographers or pros.
The OP is a beginner, so whytf people are recommending high-end kit is beyond me...!
The Olympus 4:3 system is essentially the equivalent of the "half frame" system Olympus made in the 60's and 70's.
Olympus designed it as a digital system from the start.From the outset they wanted smaller cameras and lenses, all the 4:3 lenses are designed to cover the sensor with no light fall-off at the edges making a proper digital system, rather than cobble together DSLR systems form existing 35mm technology like Canon and Nikon did initially.
All camera systems have their limitations and within its limitations the 4:3 system is superb, magazines and "camera buffs" can argue about photosites and low ISO noise all they want but for the majority of photo situations its more than acceptable. I've had images, taken inside with no flash, on my (7.5mp)e330 enlarged up to 2m x 1m on banners and they look fine.
The "live view", an Olympus innovation panned by the press until Nikon and Canon adopted it, allows more freedom in positioning the camera, if you don't like it, don't buy a camera with it and stick to the same old methods used with film.
If you are a pro then "full frame" may be worth it so buy appropriately, for everyone else who fails to see the need for some expensive "male jewellery" the budget DSLR made by whoever is giving the best deal at the time of purchase will be fine. Most people never bother with anything but he kit lens.
The OP is a beginner, so whytf people are recommending high-end kit is beyond me...!
I don't think anyone other than binno was recommending full-frame to the OP. That's just the way the discussion went.
"camera buffs" can argue about
photosites and low ISO noise all they want but for the majority of photo situations...
You say that like shooting indoors is some weird theoretical situation that only "buffs" talk about. I'd say for most camera users it is the commonest situation outside the holiday snaps (e.g. parties, weddings, kids play, etc), so low noise at high ISO is pretty important.
I find my wife's camera (Panasonic) completely unusable indoors because the noise is so bad that the picture is barely recognisable.
I'd say for most camera users it is the commonest situation outside the holiday snaps (e.g. parties, weddings, kids play, etc), so low noise at high ISO is pretty important.
Hmm, I'm sure this is true for all camera users, but for all DSLR users? I would guess that most users have a DSLR for hobby stuff and a small compact for snaps and parties etc?
But yes you do make a good point.
all the 4:3 lenses are designed to cover the sensor with no light fall-off at the edges making a proper digital system, rather than cobble together DSLR systems form existing 35mm technology like Canon and Nikon did initially.
I find this a curious statement - lenses are always designed to cover some format or other, anything else would be incompetence. And I don't think a degree of backwards compatibility can be rightly described as "cobbling together" when larger sensors can deliver better quality.
I would guess that
most users have a DSLR for hobby stuff and a small compact for snaps and parties etc?
Possibly. Though I tend to use my DSLR at parties etc particularly because I can stick on my 50mm f1.8 and shoot in available light, rather than annoying everyone and getting crappy shots with a flash.
I find this a curious statement - lenses are always designed to cover some format or other, anything else would be incompetence. And I don't think a degree of backwards compatibility can be rightly described as "cobbling together" when larger sensors can deliver better quality.
The 4:3 lenses are designed to cover the image sensor with the light falling on it at right angles, the lenses on the earlier DSLR using APS sensors were really just the old 35mm lenses. As the image sensor area is smaller than the 35mm area this lead to the light falling on the edges of the sensor at an angle, this lead to soft edges/vignetting. The Canon's certainly suffered from this. I've no doubt that now all the DSLR lenses are designed for digital sensors, however it was Olympus who realised this was going to be the case first, hence the new approach. A better explanation is on the Olympus 4:3 website. The backward compatibility approach is debatable as many 35mm SLR lenses unless very expensive were really quite poor. Olympus took a decision to start again, its up to the individual to decide if they like the results.
You say that like shooting indoors is some weird theoretical situation that only "buffs" talk about. I'd say for most camera users it is the commonest situation outside the holiday snaps (e.g. parties, weddings, kids play, etc), so low noise at high ISO is pretty important.
I didn't mean it to sound like that, of course shooting indoors is important, and any DSLR, even the 4:3 ones, will give acceptable results. what I meant was gig photography etc where there is no overall lighting.
when larger sensors can deliver better quality
This is not in dispute, but when do you stop? Eventually the manufacturers will use the smaller sensor technology to cram even more photosites into the "full frame" sensor to keep ahead in the megapixel race and its back to high ISO noise. Where do we move then? Do we all go to "full frame" medium format?
I think you would have to either:
a) Be a pro photographer
b) Be really particular about your image quality
c) Pay far too much attention to advertiser driven reviews
To find much to criticise about the quality of images from DSLR's from any of the big name players.
I'd feel like an idiot with an SLR at parties. When I've done this in the past with film, I was always having to remind people not to spill beer on it etc etc.
Two camera household here - DSLR and the smallest compact we could get, so it lives in my pocket or Mrs Grips' hand/nappy bag. For the real impromptu stuff of course I have my phone.
I'd feel like an idiot with an SLR at parties. When I've done this in the past with film, I was always having to remind people not to spill beer on it etc etc.
That's the good thing about the e-p1 / GF1, 4:3 cameras, they're almost as good as a full sized SLR, you can change the lens, and with a fixed focus lens, they are pretty similar in size to a compact, my e-p1 fits in my coat pocket easily. A bit less of a pain than things where you need a special bag to carry them around, especially for situations where picture taking isn't the main focus of the activity.
Joe
I saw the Pen style cameras, but they were £700 so didn't look again. However that e-p1 is quite a bit cheaper now, so I wish I'd considerd it. Micro 4:3 lenses seem to be much more widely available than 4:3, and the size was one of my main considerations 🙁
@Everywhen: you seem to be attributing a lot to Olympus (first live-view, first to do lenses for small sensors, special no light fall-off design??). I've no idea of the veracity of these claims, but it does seem a little odd that Olympus has lagged so much in sales if it is so on the ball for tech.
Eventually the manufacturers will use the smaller sensor technology to cram even more photosites into the "full frame" sensor to keep ahead in the megapixel race and its back to high ISO noise. Where do we move then? Do we all go to "full frame" medium format?
Nikon and Canon aren't just chasing huge pixel counts. They have recently been focussing on low noise at higher ISO with the D3S and 1D Mk IV now supporting up to ISO 102400!
But yes I did see that Canon have also just announced a 120 megapixel APS-H CMOS sensor.
I've no idea why Olympus aren't more popular. Their cameras have always been ACE for me. My old compact C5050 took brilliant pictures and had full manual control, came out in 2001 IIRC.
I've no idea why Olympus aren't more popular.
Olympus OM10, cheap as chips and bombproof, had mine for 10years without problems. Happy days.
but it does seem a little odd that Olympus has lagged so much in sales if it is so on the ball for tech.
Olympus are a small company compared with Canon and Nikon, and they don't advertise anywhere near as much. Even when 35mm SLR were the norm they sold fewer units, despite the likes of the OM1 being the first to offer technology such as TTL off the film plane metering( here I go again!...)
It does not surprise that it is not widely known that Olympus were "first to market" with some now common DSLR technology as they are really very poor at self publicity.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Nikon or Canon, I used Nikon 35mm SLRs for years, I just get a little frustrated when Nikon and Canon are trotted out as the only options (I have found camera shops guilty of this) when its just not the case. Give the little fella a chance!
I just get a little frustrated when Nikon and Canon are trotted out as the only options
Me too!
Olympus OM10, cheap as chips and bombproof, had mine for 10years without problems. Happy days.
but hardly relevant to digital surely ?
This is not in dispute, but when do you stop?
I'm not advocating either larger or smaller sensors, you have to assess a whole camera, not just its components
I just get a little frustrated when Nikon and Canon are trotted out as the only options
It's not that they are the only options, as I said earlier they are the Mondeo/Vectra of the camera world and as a novice you can't really go wrong.
Olympus may be considered to be an Alfa or Fiat, no reason not to buy but a bit more quirky, more interesting but possibly not so good on a day to day basis. 😉
but hardly relevant to digital surely ?
Am I not allowed to reminisce? 🙄
And since when has being directly relevant to the OP been a law on STW?
I think the OP left some time ago 😀
I think the OP left some time ago
Not surprised really, not sure why I kept posting...
Olympus may be considered to be an Alfa or Fiat
That explains it then, I've had 3 Alfasuds..
I just get a little frustrated when Nikon and Canon are trotted out as the only options
But they've been consistently the biggest players in 35mm then digital camera manufacture, have the greatest range of lenses and accessories, and compatibility with older kit (the Nikon F mount hasn't changed in thousands of years and even eight hundred year old lenses fit the latest bodies, more or less). Other manufacturers have had their own standards which have changed fairly often (din't Sigma have their own 35mm lens mount which is pretty much defunct now?). So the availability of second hand or other makes of lenses in the Nikon or Canon fit is far more extensive.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount#List_of_lens_mount_types ]List of lens mounts. [/url]
So buying a smaller brand with it's own proprietary lens mount comes with the risk of it becoming defunct in a relatively short time, leaving you with limited options and kit with little resale value. Buy a Canon or Nikon, and you're pretty much guaranteed to be able to get lenses to fit for a good while yet.
When I started doing photography, I bought a cheapo Vivitar cam with Pentax K fit lens mount. Very popular and widespread fitting, loads of lenses available cheaply. But when it came to getting better kit, I went for Nikon because the quality of optics and build was better than most, plus there was compatibility with AF and manual focus lenses. A beginner could buy a Canon or Nikon DSLR, build up a selection of lenses that would then still be compatible with a new body when they come to upgrade. I may have read somewhere that the micro 4 3rds system is already doomed. May be wrong though, but it's a small sensor and I can't help thinking that a larger sensor would then require a whole new lens mount.
Don't get me started on Minolta's own flashgun mounting system...
more interesting but possibly not so good on a day to day basis
Not true at all. The Oly gets great reviews consistently. The ONLY disadvantage I can think of is the dearth of second hand lenses. However Oly uses an open standard, which two manufacturers use, so should be better, in theory, in terms of longevity and brand independence.
A beginner could buy a Canon or Nikon DSLR, build up a selection of lenses that would then still be compatible with a new body when they come to upgrade.
True. Most just stick with the kit lens though.
However Oly uses an open standard
with patchy adoption and already modified by Panasonic ?
I did say 'in theory'...
molgrips - Membermore interesting but possibly not so good on a day to day basis
Not true at all. The Oly gets great reviews consistently. The ONLY disadvantage I can think of is the dearth of second hand lenses. However Oly uses an open standard, which two manufacturers use, so should be better, in theory, in terms of longevity and brand independence.
So you mis-understood me, good!
So the dearth of second hand lenses isn't the same as the scarcity of Alfa dealers and dificulty in getting parts then? 🙄 Did I say they were cr4p?
That explains it then, I've had 3 Alfasuds..
😆
True. Most just stick with the kit lens though.
Do they? Seems a bit pointless buying an SLR if you ignore on of its main assets.
For the record, I consider myself a beginner and I have four lenses (the 18-70 kit plus a 10-20, 50mm and a 70-300).
You said 'not as good', I thought you meant that the camera itself wasn't as good ie in the actual taking of photos - 'day to day' usage.
I reckon I'll need three lenses. The kit 14-42, the ultra zoom 70-300mm and something that'll be good for close-up work. Possibly the fixed 25mm job.
not so good on a day to day basis.
Is what I actually said, a bit different from [i]not as good[/i]. 😀
I took 'on a day to day basis' as meaning in general picture taking. You don't buy lenses every day, so that's not a day to day basis thing 🙂
[img] 
[/img]
Well the macro seems to work okay 😉
is that Occam's razor ?
Mrs SP started getting in photography last year and bought a Nikon D5000 after doing a bit of research.
She recommends it and doesn't seem to want to upgrade yet - unlike when I buy a bike
Lots of reviews if you google
Oh right 'splitting hairs' I see.
Bit slow [s]today[/s].