Not sure about the 600D cos I've not used one, but yes the 50mm 1.8 is well worth getting (for being able to control depth of field plus shooting without flash in low light), and yes the IS is worth having, IMO.
Re the 'shiny new toy syndrome' bit. Don't think anyone is saying it's necessarily wrong - someone made a good point earlier though - can she imagine herself taking out different lenses and swapping between them?
I'd also bear in mind budgeting for a copy of Lightroom for editing - one of the main advantages of digital photography with a decent camera is being able to shoot RAW which allows for amazing flexibility in editing.
We've seen a few deals which offer a 50mm f/1.8 II lens with it, is this worth having? It seems to retail at about £80 but most deals with them add about £30 to the price.
It's an incredible piece of kit for the money, and if you can get it for an extra £30 I'd tear their arms off. You'll be hard pressed to find a Canon owner who doesn't own it (and there's a Nikon equivalent that's equally ubiquitous).
18-55mm DC III
My understanding, and I could be wrong here, is that the DC-III is what in technical terms is known as "crap".
is the 600d worth an extra £100?
Biggest differences are the flip-out screen and 18Mp vs 12Mp, off the top of my head.
She is quite prepared for more than a "point and click" however, she doesn't want something that is overly complicated just for the sake of it.
Sounds like a compact system would be ideal. You don't really lose out in terms of features or image quality, but some of them at least are more geared towards simplicity. In the Olympus range the ones with an L in are simpler. E-PL3 is a good bet or e-PL5 if you can stretch.
Go to a shop and compare a compact system side by side with an SLR. I would also suggest taking her with you - it's a lot of money to spend without any input from the intended user.
I'd pay the extra for the 600D...
As Cougar mentions, I think the 18-55mm DC III lens is supposed to be a bit rubbish. I'd go for the IS version.
Also, if you can get the 50mm 1.8 for a little extra, I would go for it. It might not be massively versatile as a 'general' lens (I will get flamed for saying that) as you will find it a bit too long for close-up portrait stuff and a bit too short for zooming in on distant objects type stuff. BUT, I've got the Nikon equivalent and it is a useful lens to have; I just wouldn't have it on all the time as my 'general' lens.
The best thing to do is to get along to a shop and try them out. I was down to Canon/Nikon when trying to decide what to get. I wanted to like the Canon more as it was cheaper and my Bro-In-law already had a Canon SLR so I figured we could swap lenses etc. But, I just didn't get on with the Canon at all, the menu systems made no sense to me (compared to the Nikon) and the camera body felt cheap in comparison to the Nikon (admittedly, it was cheaper).
Yes, if you're going to get the canon get the 50mm. The lack of stabilisation limits it's versatility but for the price it's well worth having.
I just didn't get on with the Canon at all, the menu systems made no sense to me (compared to the Nikon)
I got to exactly the same point, and found the opposite to be true for me. I don't think one system is inherently 'better' than the other, but the layout is quite a personal thing. For me the Canon was immediately intuitive, whereas I picked up a Nikon and went "what the hell?" To be fair though I was coming from an IXUS which has a broadly similar (though obviously much simplified) layout.
Very true. I found Olympus menus completely appalling, even after two years of use, yet I don't remember seeing anyone else complain.
Ok I'm semi pro shot with most of the Canon line here is my take on it.
Buy Canon 550D Tell her to set it to the portrait mode when shooting images of you or you of her or third party of you both. Landscape mode for everything else and you will not go far wrong on your first outing.
And if she gets into it invest in glass (lenses) not camera bodies.
Really these days you can put a DSLR in the hands of an 8 year old and get some decent (in layman's terms) images. If she gets into it then learn about shutter speed, aperture and ISO etc.. But if your not bothered use the above settings and it will get you most of the way there, people love to over complicate stuff.
But is there really any point in the size and weight of a DSLR if you're just going to leave it in auto and take snaps? I suspect not.
Wont that nifty Fifty you are recommending (Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens) actually be an 80mm equivalent on a crop sensor?
But is there really any point in the size and weight of a DSLR if you're just going to leave it in auto and take snaps? I suspect not.
I'll bite 😉
As badllama says, scene modes will give you good results. Stick it in sports mode and it'll do action too.
So you're down to will the results be better than doing the same thing with a compact system? Yes, for action, no for everything else.
Is the extra weight worth it? Yes, if you expect to shoot action. Lenses are a lot cheaper for a dslr than a compact system. The 50mm f1.8 being a prime example.
Wont that nifty Fifty you are recommending (Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens) actually be an 80mm equivalent on a crop sensor?
Yes, the field of view will be 80mm equivalent.
You know this thread is very distressing. There I was all set to buy a new camera before I go on holiday next week, probably a DSLR, and now I find out that it will likely be a waste of money as I am in no way a camera buff.
Given that my existing camera is around 9 years old I'm still going to buy a new one but are the compacts just as good as those other compacts that use the same lens system as SLRs? Having said that I do want a camera with a view finder.
Given that my existing camera is around 9 years old I'm still going to buy a new one but are the compacts just as good as those other compacts that use the same lens system as SLRs? Having said that I do want a camera with a view finder.
For your budget there's a range of dslr from every manufacturer which, obviously, have view finders.
Compact systems are much more limited. The only large sensor compact system with a built in view finder that springs to mind is the Nex-6.
I wouldn't rule out a dslr assuming you don't mind the thought of lugging one around.
organic355 - Member
Wont that nifty Fifty you are recommending (Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens) actually be an 80mm equivalent on a crop sensor?
Yeah. Hence my comments about it not being very versatile (IMO, of course) for 'general' photography, such as being on holiday (honeymoon). Much better off with something like an 18-105, I reckon, even though outright image quality might be not quite as good and you won't have such a large aperture for low light stuff.
gonefishin - Member
You know this thread is very distressing. There I was all set to buy a new camera before I go on holiday next week, probably a DSLR, and now I find out that it will likely be a waste of money as I am in no way a camera buff.Given that my existing camera is around 9 years old I'm still going to buy a new one but are the compacts just as good as those other compacts that use the same lens system as SLRs? Having said that I do want a camera with a view finder.
Why would it be a waste of money as you are not a camera buff? Just be aware that there MAY be other options and YOU MAY be better off with some of the alternatives. Or you may not.
Generally, the pecking order in terms of image quality still goes Compact < Mirrorless Compact (other names are available) < DSLR
It's all about compromise and deciding what your requirements are. If you definitely want a viewfinder, then that means most compacts and mirrorless compacts are out straight away.
Do you forsake some image quality for something that will slip in your pocket? Do you forsake something that will fit in your pocket for something that will take better quality images and has a battery that will last for weeks....etc. etc. etc.
I was thinking of something like this instead of a DSLR
[url= http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/panasonic/lumix-dmc-g3-compact-system-camera-with-14-42mm-lens-81279/show.html ]Panasonic Lumix[/url]
Generally, the pecking order in terms of image quality still goes Compact < Mirrorless Compact (other names are available) < DSLR
Given that most munfacturers use the same sensor in their compact systems and dslrs (Canon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji) it's actually...
Compact < Mirrorless Compact = DSLR
In fact Nikon and Fuji both have compact cameras that use the same sensors as dslrs and sony have a full frame compact, so it can even be...
Compact = Mirrorless Compact = DSLR
It's all about compromise and deciding what your requirements are. If you definitely want a viewfinder, then that means most compacts and mirrorless compacts are out straight away.
Except sony, fuji, panasonic and olympus all make compact system cameras with view finders.
But given the budget I'd agree that dslrs may well be the preferred option
The only large sensor compact system with a built in view finder that springs to mind is the Nex-6.
The G3 posted above does. I'm a big fan of the Micro Four Thirds system.
The G3 posted above does. I'm a big fan of the Micro Four Thirds system.
Yeah, that fits the bill too.
A compact will not be as good as a compact system camera (CSC) but the quality these days is very good especially when comparing with a 9 year old camera.
Many CSC also come with electronic view finders either built in or as an add on option.
A compact will not be as good as a compact system camera (CSC) but the quality these days is very good especially when comparing with a 9 year old camera.
Sony rx100 is better than Nikon's compact system.
Nikon Coolpix-A is a match for any compact system.
Fuji x100 is a match for any compact system.
Sony RX1 is better than any compact system.
There are no rules anymore 😉
5thElefant - MemberExcept sony, fuji and olympus all make compact system cameras with view finders.
I thought I had been general enough in my comment by using the word 'most', especially as I was referring to compacts and mirrorless compacts.
Perhaps I should have added some kind of "I haven't looked at every single camera available on the market today" type disclaimer?
You said yourself in the post above mine, that
Compact systems are much more limited.
with regard to viewfinders.....
with regard to viewfinders.....
Yeah, I'm being picky.
Most compact systems offer cameras with view finders, and pretty much all offer add-on view finders, but within budget you're absolutely right, the dslr offers the most choice.
Yes, if you expect to shoot action
Well he's going on his honeymoon so maybe, I dunno. I would possibly recommend a tripod and remote shutter release in that case. Also consider off-camera flash and some reflectors.
Well he's going on his honeymoon so maybe, I dunno. I would possibly recommend a tripod and remote shutter release in that case. Also consider off-camera flash and some reflectors.
😯 😆
5thElefant - MemberSony rx100 is better than Nikon's compact system.
Nikon Coolpix-A is a match for any compact system.
Fuji x100 is a match for any compact system.
Sony RX1 is better than any compact system.
All a bit leftfield, perhaps, although the rx100 is a good shout..
The Coolpix-A is £1000 for a fixed lens compact. You'd expect it to be as good/better than compact camera systems; most of which can be had for substantially less money. And the fixed lens somewhat reduces it's versatility.
Same for the X100, although not as expensive as the Coolpix A.
And the Sony RX1 is £2500 so again you'd hope it would be better than most compact system cameras. Although again - it is less versatile for many situations having a fixed lens and you could get a range of cameras that would cover most general requirements for the same cost as the RX1.
Yeah, none of them are recommendations, although the rx100 would do.
It's simply that form factor has no relationship to image quality anymore.
It is hard to beat the value for money of a dslr though.
The entry level DSLRs I've handled seemed pretty crappily made to me though. Worse build quality than similarly priced compacts.
Remember £300 is a bargain basement DSLR but a top notch compact. You could get an Oly TG-1 for that.
Top notch for a small sensor compact. You can't get a large sensor compact for that. Given the OP is after a dslr it's not really comparable.
I got my wife the Sony RX-100 before our last holiday and I can't rate it high enough. The amount of cropping you can do with the 20Mp output is incredible, it's great in low light and for macro shots and also for general creative use of depth of field. It's a huge step up from her Lumix LX3, espcially with the built in Dynamic Range and HDR options..
There's still stuff my DSLR can do better but as soon as the RX200 comes out I'm getting one cheap as a second camera...
badllama - MemberReally these days you can put a DSLR in the hands of an 8 year old and get some decent (in layman's terms) images.
[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8213/8300179643_720a39357a.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/beanum/8300179643/ ]merge[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/beanum/ ]Beanum[/url], on Flickr
Another vote for the Sony RX100 from me - it's annoying that it doesn't have a viewfinder, but it has now replaced my Panasonic G2 as "small camera, great image quality" travel camera. (The G2 is for sale, if you're interested - with 14-45mm lens for 150 quid, posted 🙂 )
When people are saying "viewfinder", do you mean [i]optical[/i] viewfinder or just "a little hole I can look into"?
Most CSC-type cameras I've looked at which had viewfinders were actually EVFs; a little LCD display mounted behind a traditional-looking peephole. Might as well use the main LCD for shooting unless you've got direct sunlight making it hard to see.
Things might have changed since I last looked, of course.
Given the OP is after a dslr it's not really comparable.
Well the question is whether or not he should actually be after a DSLR.
Might as well use the main LCD for shooting
All CSCs will be electronic viewfinder - they are compact because there's no mirror and prism. Those two things are how an optical viewfinder works. And yes you might as well use the LCD but that's true for optical VFs as well, broadly. The only thing that generally doesn't work using the LCD is phase detect AF which you don't get on most CSCs anyway.
The advantages of viewfinders apply to both optical and electronic VFs. Electronic ones also have several further advantages.
Well the question is whether or not he should actually be after a DSLR.
That's not a question the OP asked.
All CSCs will be electronic viewfinder - they are compact because there's no mirror and prism.
Except fuji. They fall inot the "a little hole I can look into" category.
The advantages of viewfinders apply to both optical and electronic VFs. Electronic ones also have several further advantages.
That's not really fair, Olympus-Face; there's advantages and disadvantages to both.
Hmm.. OVFs are losing their advantages.. but it's moot really because you don't get the choice on any given camera. The real question is OVF is enough of a reason to choose a DSLR. I'm not sure it is.
PDAF, large sensors, legacy lenses or having butchers' hands are the reasons for choosing a DSLR, I reckonm.
EVF's are always inferior to optical ones even if the newest Sony ones have some compensations, but holding up your camera like you're holding up a baby with a stinky nappy to stare at the rear screen is really unsatisfactory, especially in any kind of sunlight. The Sony RX100 has a cool focus peaking display, but on the small rear screen it's pretty useless, IME. It's also harder to hold the camera steady.
The main benefit of an optical viewfinder for me is that if you're taking a photo of someone and after you press the shutter their expression changes, even a fraction, then you take another one. The same goes for capturing a moving object or even re-framing a shot. You can easily take multiple shots without looking away..
I'll admit I've never used a CSC but with every compact I've used, even if you turn off the preview, there's some sort of lag before you can take another shot...
The one thing I really miss from an EVF is a virtual horizon. My D90 is too old to have that feature.. 🙁
EVF's are always inferior to optical ones even if the newest Sony ones have some compensations,
There's pluses and minuses to both. Neither is inferior or superior. I swap back and forth between the a900 which has the best OVF ever featured on a dslr and a nex7 which has one of the best EVFs. I always miss the features of the other...
Molgrips may have a point with aps-c dslrs. Their viewfinders are tiny dim tunnels.
but holding up your camera like you're holding up a baby with a stinky nappy to stare at the rear screen is really unsatisfactory, especially in any kind of sunlight. The Sony RX100 has a cool focus peaking display, but on the small rear screen it's pretty useless, IME. It's also harder to hold the camera steady.
You're holding it wrong. Flip the screen out, brace it against your body and use it like a TLR. It gives the added advantage than nobody thinks you're taking photos.
The main benefit of an optical viewfinder for me is that if you're taking a photo of someone and after you press the shutter their expression changes, even a fraction, then you take another one. The same goes for capturing a moving object or even re-framing a shot. You can easily take multiple shots without looking away..
You haven't used a modern EVF (an EVF isn't a rear LCD, just in case you're including those). I can tell. 🙂
You're holding it wrong.
Thanks, but there is no "flipping" to do on the RX100.
Thanks, but there is no "flipping" to do on the RX100.
Fair enough 😉
I did wonder after I typed it...
I would have bought an rx1 if it had a flip-out screen (or built in evf). The lack of tilting does make life difficult.
EVF's are always inferior to optical ones even if the newest Sony ones have some compensations
Depends what you mean by inferior. On EVFs you can do stuff like zoom in to aid manual focus, have focus peaking, increase the brightness etc.
I'll admit I've never used a CSC but with every compact I've used, even if you turn off the preview, there's some sort of lag before you can take another shot.
That's one reason why CSCs are better than compacts.
Also - does the lack of a mirror allow faster continuous shooting? It seems to, generally, but I've not really looked into it.
Also - does the lack of a mirror allow faster continuous shooting? It seems to, generally, but I've not really looked into it.
yep if you look at specs usually the mirror less cameras offer more fps than the DSLR with the similar engine.
