Forum menu
As for limiting yourself to think about composition - not sure why having more than two lenses would stop you thinking about composition. Photography is all about composition, isn't it, regardless of lens? Otherwise it's just snaps.
Definitely - I've got more silly expensive lenses than I should really admit to, but rarely go out with more than two or three. I find it harder with more lenses - it makes it harder to mentally frame images.
I think if I was starting again, I'd go completely against everything said here - I'd get a FF and a single 50mm lens. I've learned a lot more with that setup than I ever did carrying about a bag of different lenses.
I've learned a lot more with that setup than I ever did carrying about a bag of different lenses
That's been mentioned often on here but I've got no idea where you are coming from. Prime lenses give prime lens style pics. Wide angle ones give wide angle style pics. If you only have a prime you can only take prime style pics. Sure you can get really good at it but there's a whole range of stuff you just can't do.
I suppose if you were prone to fannying about with gear and not properly thinking about what you were doing then it could help, but I don't suffer from that.
Just got a new camera just before Christmas. Canon eos-m, its pretty compact and with adapters can take a multitude of lenses. Here are a few test shots quickly taken when I got it:[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/wilsonalasdair/sets/72157632320093581/ ]new eos mn[/url]
Molgrips that looks like a great collection.
Still stuck on one lens. Partly due to funds butartly as I can't decide if I'm really committed to Nikon F mount...
That's been mentioned often on here but I've got no idea where you are coming from.
I guess what I mean is that, for me, when I started out having more lenses was a distraction. Fr example, instead of thinking properly about framing a shot I'd just bung on a different lens. It's a bit like how everyone goes through the post-processing phase where you experiment with lots of PP effects, before eventually going back to taking picture properly in the first place 😉
Perhaps it's a bit like learning to ride a bike - you don't bung a child on a full-sus bike with 27 gears and disc brakes, you put them on a Like-A-Bike where all they have to think about is balance. With a single prime lens, you don't have to think about which lens to use, how to zoom and stuff like that, so you can concentrate more on learning about aperture, shutter speed and the important stuff.
I think it also helps with learning spontaneity - a small prime lens is great for just strolling about.
Molgrips that looks like a great collection.
Thanks, it's meant to cover most possibilities for the least money. I've promised myself I won't go chasing ever better quality or light - there's just no point. As an example there's a 50-200mm f2.8 which is rather nice and not too expensive in the older version without the supersonic motor, but I'd need a teleconverter to get what I can get with my 300mm, and it only gets me one extra stop. Hardly ground breaking improvement. To get a significantly better wildlife lens I'd have to spend thousands really.
Having said that I think I will save up for a teleconverter for wildlife. It's a bit silly but on holiday somewhere sunny where there's unusual wildlife there might just be enough light 🙂
a small prime lens is great for just strolling about.
Yeah well just because I have all those lenses doesn't mean I carry them about all the time. I often do have just a prime.
No, you don't need a full frame sensor unless you're planning on doing either portrait or landscape photography. For those two you'll reap the rewards that increased sensor size (and cost) will give.
There are many, many professionals using crop sensors, it's the person using the camera that is composing the image and choosing the settings, the camera's just a means of capturing the creativity.
You'll be much better off spending your money on lenses than a FF body and one or two lenses.
I'm with Stumpy on this. I would rather have my mid range kit (7d and 60d plus good compliment of lenses) and invest in travel rather than go full frame.
Of course if I had the money I would do both!
BB
I think if I was starting again, I'd go completely against everything said here - I'd get a FF and a single 50mm lens. I've learned a lot more with that setup than I ever did carrying about a bag of different lenses.
Having been pretty much forced back to this after my staple 24-105L failed partway through this holiday, I've found today's walk with only a 50mm or 18mm on my 5d2 a rather re-enlightening affair
Fwiw, I've got about 8 lenses in a cupboard, but unless I'm going anywhere specific (eg sports for long tele or botanic garden for macro) I tend to stick with the L zoom or UWA and just use them. My photography is certainly much improved since I stopped faffing about with 6 different lenses
Yup, FF NEX cameras are on the way next year too...
For me that'll be the nail in the coffin for bulky SLR's with flipping mirrors and expensive lenses. Even the current NEX7 would be the camera I would like regardless of price.
I have a friend who pretty much queued up for a nex7 when they came out, just in time for his youngest to be born. Yet strangely, most of the pics of his kids he has on display were taken on my clunky expensively lensed Canon 5D Mk II.
He's already said he wished he'd got the 5D now
Maybe it's just me being old-fashioned again, but I can't really get on with my NEX-5. It's well made, takes decent images and is very good for video, but it doesn't feel part of me the way the big A900 does. Maybe it's as simple as the fact it's got a screen not a viewfinder.
I'm with you there, Im just not able to feel quite as comfy with a compact as I can with a dslr, the rugged larger grip of the dslr just feels right. Though after 2 hours climbing a mountain a bag with a dslr and 4 lenses feels a bit annoying too.
I have to say I think that the NEX range is all smoke and mirrors. They look great on the internet but the reality is some what different. The 6 and 7 might be better..
My sister has a NEX 3. Small body huge lens. I keep wanting to like it as I could buy one used very cheaply. But the user interface is so bad that i feel permanantly lost. AF is OK in good light on static subjects. But poor in low light or on moving objects
Maybe the phase detect AF on the NEX 6 will bring it all together?
If I was to go mirrorless it would be with micro fourthirds. Much maligned for its smaller sensor its a system that actually seems to work. Good handling bodies a good range of lenses and lenses that are really smaller
NEX has grown from a culture of internet reviews with loads of pixel peeping and the desire to have the ultimate image quality. When in reality most peole will be printing small or uploading to face book
I moved from Olympus m4/3 to nex. The user interface on the Olympus was awful. The nex5 is ok. The nex7 is better than a dslr.
Now Olympus has moved to Sony sensors there isn't much in iq and the new Sony lenses are a match for m4/3 so I don't think there's much between the two systems.
Having said that... the only thing going for nex or m4/3 is size. Autofocus on anything moving is useless compared to a dslr and they're both fiddly little things. Lenses on both systems are ludicrously expensive.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was cheaper to build a system around a Nikon d600 than either m4/3 or nex.
Seriously the motion AF on the NEX7 isn't anygood? With static stuff is really fast so what is going on there?
I must've spent £1500 on my camera kit. I paid £300 for the camera and I have 7 other lenses.
I don't need 7 lenses. I have 4. One is tatty and well used Sigma 17-70 f2.8 MTBing pics, and is passable for macro use. One is a wide Sigma 10-20mm and only gets used rarely, the same as my 50mm f1.8. I've just bought a Sigma 18-250 which will probably take 80% of my pics for the next 5 years.
If I had to choose one of those 4 it would be the tatty old Sigma 17-70. It's crisp, it's fast, it's versatile. It matters more what you point the camera at than what camera you're pointing at it. Photography isn't about 'creativity' and gear. It's about taking pictures. 🙂
Much maligned for its smaller sensor its a system that actually seems to work.
Similar story for the Olympus SLRs too it seems. More noise at high ISO was reason for the pixel peeping gear nerds to write off 4/3, but there seems to be quite a few people around who love the handling, operation and the lenses.
Lenses on both systems are ludicrously expensive
Really?
JCL - just contrast detect af vs phase detect. Fast is an overstatement for static subjects on the nex7 though. Adequate mostly. Not fast.
Molgrips - sure. Compare the price of a new 25mm f1.4 from Panasonic to a 50mm f1.4 from canon for example. Then look at the second hand market.
Compact lenses are costing me a fortune compared to full frame lenses.
Well it made my old D60 seem clockwork!
Gutted though as I loved it (the NEX7) when I was playing around with it. Seemed like the future.
I use my nex7 more than my dslr. Everything is a compromise one way or another.
Compare the price of a new 25mm f1.4 from Panasonic to a 50mm f1.4 from canon for example
Hmm.. well the former is marketed as a top notch lens isn't it? And the latter is a do-it-all cheapo that happens to be quite good. Economies of scale apply, which I guess is your point.
Yes, there's that. There's the huge used market that doesn't exist for compact system lenses, and the extreme pixel density on the compact systems that are much more fussy about lens quality.
Well.. the point about 4/3 is that it's easier to make a sharper lens BECAUSE of the smaller sensor, isn't it? And m4/3 is the same size...?
The requirement for physically smaller lenses probably pushes the price up tho.
It will be interesting to see if uptake of compact systems increases, but I suspect it might not be. Just read the film camera thread for people's feelings about their cameras beyond practical usability.
"But it just FEELS so nice".. wtf, it's a camera not a blowjob.
Well.. the point about 4/3 is that it's easier to make a sharper lens BECAUSE of the smaller sensor, isn't it? And m4/3 is the same size...?
Not really, the quality of the glass has to be far superior for the bit of lens that is used for u4/3. If you cut the sensor on my 5d2 to a u4/3 size, it would only be about 5.5 mpx, yet it is a 22 mpx sensor at FF
God keep it simple
Buy a camera body in your budget with the best metering system
Does it have a processor on it if so even better.
Buy pre set lenses if you really need them (not right now).
Buy a good zoom lens IE 28 to 140 focal length with the biggest F stop you can afford.
My day to day camera even photographing my Furniture I use a
Canon G11 Yep a Compact digital camera Laugh you may but I put these in Magazines
as long has I don't go any bigger than 10*8 and MB wise 4 meg is all you need for
quality publication.
The two pictures was shot in Manual metering in Natural light and I did override the flash and the
camera was hand held too.
Also I have not used Aperture so no enhancement one bit.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
"But it just FEELS so nice".. wtf, it's a camera not a blowjob.
Dunno, people can choose what they like, they don't have to justify it to anybody. It's a creative hobby, it would be pretty sad if eveyone used the same tools.
If someone want's to use a camera becase they like the feel, or even the colour of the backlghting on the buttons, it's up to them. At least they didn't choose it because they read their opinion on an internet forum.
You use those pics to sell your furniture? They are awful.
The furniture looks quality, the images aren't.
With the Canons the models move up like so: xxxxd, xxxd, xxd, and then you have the 7d 5d and the 1d, (and I think they've just recently introduced a 6d).Single digit models are higher up the tree, with the 1d being at the top (at least in monetary terms).
So looking at the Canons. I was looking at the 60D in Curry's for £729, I am sure it will be cheaper elsewhere but just wanted to have a look at it.)
Whats the main difference between the 60D and the 650D or 600D?, the 650D can be had for £809 with £50 cashback, so all comparable prices)
all 3 seem to be 18 megapixels, Sensor size and type: 22.3 x 14.9mm CMOS (what is this?? also what is APS-C????)
HD video: Full HD 1080p
ISO Speed Range: 100-6400
I thought the 60D would be far higher spec than the 600/650??
Organic check this site out for reviews
[url= http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_eos_60d_review/ ]Canon EOS 60D review[/url]
[url= http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_eos_650d_review/ ]Canon EOS 650 review [/url]
Difference between 60d, 650d and 600d?
From memory, the main difference will be between the 60d and the 600/650d - the 60d is more ergonomic with 2 control dials (when in full manual you have instant access to shutter and aperture, rather than having to use the same dial and press a button) along with less features buried in menus and directly accessible through primary buttons.
The 650d is a slight upgrade to the 600d, although I don't know if the sensor is improved. If you're looking for a direct numbers comparison, try snapsort.com
APS-C is a sensor size, it's equivalent to an old (now defunct) film size called 'Advanced Picture System - Clasic'.
Keep an eye on http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod.php?n=CanonEOS7DBody&p=1170
Generally quite good at getting the cheapest price, that said I saw a 7D for 800 ish the other day on ebay...
BTW, the control dial on the 60D (and 7D) is def worth having. The little joy stick you get for selecting focus points is also worth having (but only on the 7d)
Grantway: not the worlds best pictures. Fuzzy and low resolution. The double socket and mixer tap on the second pic show it worst for me.
OP: No need for full frame for most photographers. I wanted one a few years ago (still using a D80 currently). I shoot a lot of stage performances and wanted full frame for the extra ISO reach it offers. However, with current sensors offering very high ISO at DX frame size then I think my next camera will be a DX rather than FX frame size. The loss of zoom reach on FX is high (unless you use in cropped mode).
Any SLR will be a massive leap up from a point and shoot. Handle a few and see what feels right for you. I much preffered the feel of Nikons when I was shopping. Now that I have >£1000 of wireless flashes and lenses, I am certain my next body will be a Nikon too.
Organic355 - the 18mp canon sensor is an old one. That's not to say it's bad but you should be paying a lot less than a camera with a new generation sensor.
[url= http://www.dxomark.com ]DXO[/url] is useful for comparing camera specs.
Not really, the quality of the glass has to be far superior for the bit of lens that is used for u4/3
Surely the difficulty in making lenses is around the edges? So by not using the edges they made it easier to make good lenses rather than harder?
Every Olympus 4/3 lens review I read said they were very good or amazing for the price. Mainly because 4/3 is a new system designed for digital.
Grantway - sorry but those pics do look a bit amateurish. If you are near South Wales I might be able to help you do a little better 🙂
4/3rds is an odd one. Simultaneously new and obsolete. I don't doubt you can get good lenses at reasonable prices, but you can't get a modern body to use the on.
There are growing rumours that they are working on one, based on the OM-D sensor.
Yeah, I noticed. Looks like an adapter based solution. I wonder if Sony buying a chunk of Olympus is related? The slt adapter that Sony use on the nex to use alpha mount lenses would be the obvious solution.
Adapter based? As opposed to the actual adapter you can buy?
They say they want to make something to support the top pro lenses, which must mean it has to have PDAF.
Maybe E-5s will come down in price on ebay 🙂
From what I've read it will accept m43 and 43 lenses. As they have different flange distances you need an adapter. As contrast detect doesn't really work with lenses designed for phase detect they either need a big breakthrough in on-chip phase detect or they need to licence their new partners phase detect via translucent mirror, which sits in the flange spacer/adapter.
[url= http://www.43rumors.com/more-info-about-the-high-end-olympus-cameras-it-is-an-omd/ ]This must have been what I read...[/url]
Surely the difficulty in making lenses is around the edges? So by not using the edges they made it easier to make good lenses rather than harder?
Well, when the 7d came out with (then) one of the most pixel-dense sensors on the market, most reviewers reckoned that was actually a sterner test of lenses than the higher resolution (but FF) 5d2
Olympus have always made cracking lenses though. Most of my lenses i use on my 5d2 are OM with an adapter, and most stand up pretty well
Which ones zokes? There is a page online somewhere where a guy has tested all his OM lenses on a 4/3 camera. Some were good and some were quite poor.
The only one I carry around usually is my 18mm f/3.5, which to my eyes on some test photos I took using it vs the canon 17-40L was superior
I also occasionally use a 135mm and 200mm, both of which are pin sharp
The two I've been unimpressed with are a 28mm f/3.5, which just seems very soft with lots of ca, and a very old 50mn f/1.4, which is soft wide open, but sadly not much use for digital at all as you get reflections off the sensor.