The Camera Thread

[Harry Bizzle]

-Worse than the D3100.
-More expensive than the D3100, last I checked.
-Uglier than the D3100.
-Has built in focus motor, therefore some cheaper lenses.



The Canon 50mm f/1.8 costs a mere £75, compared to the £160 Nikon equivalent, but that seems to be the only lens which is considerably cheaper.


Personally, I'm probably going to get the 50mm f/1.4 when I upgrade from my manual f/1.8, and the price difference isn't that much between Nikon and Canon for that lens.

[OldSoulCyborg]

Any interest in light field cameras, or are you all a bunch of luddites?


Skip to 4:20 for the truly mind blowing stuff if you don't have the patience to sit through the rest.



This is very exciting new technology, even if it is probably a few years from being adaptable to more professional types of cameras.

[That's not a growth]

Hey guys, I'm looking for help. In Jan my sister is going to Borneo for 2 months a need a new camera. She wants something with a sweet spot between size and zoom. Low light shooting isn't really going to matter too much since most of the stuff she's going to do, and thus most photo opportunities, will be during the day.

I was thinking something like this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0053PD6FS/ref=noref?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&psc=1 after reading it's review on engadget but I would love some suggestions if anyone has anything. This is at the top of our price range, so cheaper rather than more expensive than that if possible.

[Knoyleo]

If you want something with a decent zoom range on it, I probably wouldn't go for a nex. The 18-55 it comes with doesn't offer you a great range, and is already a lens that's starting to feel too big for the body it's attached to. If you fork out extra for a longer lens, it starts to feel ridiculous to use, like you're just holding the lens with a bit of plastic attached to the back. If you want something with mega zoom and a relatively small size, a superzoom/bridge type camera would be better.

Something like this Fuji: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fujifilm-FinePi ... 069&sr=1-9

It comes with a ridiculously flexible zoom range, and despite its DSLR style looks, it really isn't that bulky at all.

[That's not a growth]

That's the exact one my mum was thinking of. I had a fuji a few years ago and liked it, despite its fixed lens. Cheers, might as well go for it since it's so much cheaper.

[Victor Mildew]

OO a camera thread!

Looking at picking up a DSLR and a friend who does wedding photography recommended a Canon 50D or 60D.

Anyone used these?

[Dig Dug]

Never saw this thread. I'll just C+P my problem from the other thread.
After having a long chat with a mate of mine who works at cash converters I decided to take a gamble with this camera.

Canon EOS 400D
Friend told me that it must have been a year or two old, it turns out the EOS 400D is 5 years old. I'll be fair it looked good when I tried it out in the store and it did come with some accessories so I bought it for £300. I know a lot of people don't like CC but my thought going in was "well DSRL camers do cost this much and the EOS 550D was £650 in argos so this can't be a bad deal". Also the former owner was a journalist or something like that.

Anyway I've got a 60 day warranty, should I keep it or take it back?
Or should I get this newer 2011 camera?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B004 ... nics&psc=1

Also the one I bought today smells like smoke so I may be better off taking it back.

[Victor Mildew]

I'd take it back, better to be totally happy.

Orderd my 60D today, should be here in the next day or two

[Knoyleo]

Any idea how many shutter actuations have been made? I guess not, being from Cash Converters, but if you check the file name sequencing, you might be able to get an idea, providing it hasn't been reset. The 400D isn't a bad camera, per se, but low light performance will be pretty paltry by today's standards. What matters more will be the glass you use with it. Is that the standard 18-55 kit lens? It looks like it. It's not a great lens. A quick search on ebay shows that you could get a used 400D body only for about £100 less, which would be enough to get you the "nifty" 50 f1.8, the basic first portrait and fast prime for almost any Canon user. You have got a battery grip with it, which is nice, and typically a fairly expensive add on, however, it may not be worth it for you if you aren't using the camera for extended shoots and not running the batteries dry before you have a chance to get home and recharge.

I'd say you haven't got the greatest deal out there, but your alternative shouldn't be to instantly go out and splurge a load on a brand new 550/600D. Look for a second hand 450D body, and a better lens to go with it. Any of the EOS Canon lenses will work on all their crop sensor bodies (everything up to the semi-pro 5D and above) so whatever glass you get will work on any other Canon body you might upgrade to in the future if you decide to stick with the hobby.

[Dig Dug]

Any idea how many shutter actuations have been made? I guess not, being from Cash Converters, but if you check the file name sequencing, you might be able to get an idea, providing it hasn't been reset. The 400D isn't a bad camera, per se, but low light performance will be pretty paltry by today's standards. What matters more will be the glass you use with it. Is that the standard 18-55 kit lens? It looks like it. It's not a great lens. A quick search on ebay shows that you could get a used 400D body only for about £100 less, which would be enough to get you the "nifty" 50 f1.8, the basic first portrait and fast prime for almost any Canon user. You have got a battery grip with it, which is nice, and typically a fairly expensive add on, however, it may not be worth it for you if you aren't using the camera for extended shoots and not running the batteries dry before you have a chance to get home and recharge.

I'd say you haven't got the greatest deal out there, but your alternative shouldn't be to instantly go out and splurge a load on a brand new 550/600D. Look for a second hand 450D body, and a better lens to go with it. Any of the EOS Canon lenses will work on all their crop sensor bodies (everything up to the semi-pro 5D and above) so whatever glass you get will work on any other Canon body you might upgrade to in the future if you decide to stick with the hobby.

I partly bought it because I study art and media, it isn't really a hobby. The lens is the 18-55. Looking around I can get the body on amazon for £190 boxed with all the stuff. The grip is handy I'll agree but I don't think I'll use it that much but it depends on how much I save just getting the body and lens. What lens should I get by the way?

[Dig Dug]

Just talking to said friend. Apparently his manager is a prick so I can't get a refund. No matter, I've decided to keep the 400D. I might just sell the grip (don't really need it) and the 18-55mm lens. I'll get the 50 f1.8 lens you mentioned. May not be the best solution but I'm happy with it.

[Knoyleo]

You should still be able to get a decent amount for a second hand battery grip, assuming it's a proper Canon one, as they charge a fair bit for them new, which keeps 2nd hand prices up.

Just bear in mind obviously, the 50mm is a fixed focal length lens, so there's no zoom, but it's only slightly shorter in range than the 18-55, and you've got your own form of biological zoom in your feet. The f1.8 aperture will make it great for low light work, and take a lot of the strain off the sensor when you don't have to bump the ISO up as far.

[Fatal Exception]

Any interest in light field cameras, or are you all a bunch of luddites?


Skip to 4:20 for the truly mind blowing stuff if you don't have the patience to sit through the rest.



This is very exciting new technology, even if it is probably a few years from being adaptable to more professional types of cameras.

This needs more research. I didn't understand much of what they were explaining. Seems like voodoo to me.

[Victor Mildew]

It's here!

[Harry Bizzle]

What lens did you buy with it?

[Victor Mildew]

It came with an EFS 18-55mm, but i'll be buying the 50mm 1.8 nifty fifty prime asap, along with a decent tele lens.

[Harry Bizzle]

I'm currently after the Nikon 55-200mm, but also, I have decided to get into off camera flash, so I'm going to invest in a set up.


The question is, which do I do first?



Oh, and the old Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8 is extremely sharp and quite cheap, so I'm thinking of replacing my kit lens with that.


And I'm broke.

[Harry Bizzle]

Falsey is after a camera. He doesn't seem to be sure about whether or not to get a DSLR, and seems to be looking at entry range models (The Pentax K-r caught his eye).


I'm going to write a big fat explanation of why to get a DSLR rather than say, a mirrorless or something but I'm caught between a lot of work and a lot of other work, so if anyone wants to jump in here, feel free.


I told him for a start, forget about Pentax. It's not worth the hassle or lack of choice if you want to play around with different lenses in the future (and why wouldn't you?). Knoyleo shoots Sony though, so he's probably got a different take on the matter.

[Fatal Exception]

Falsey is after a camera. He doesn't seem to be sure about whether or not to get a DSLR, and seems to be looking at entry range models (The Pentax K-r caught his eye).


I'm going to write a big fat explanation of why to get a DSLR rather than say, a mirrorless or something but I'm caught between a lot of work and a lot of other work, so if anyone wants to jump in here, feel free.


I told him for a start, forget about Pentax. It's not worth the hassle or lack of choice if you want to play around with different lenses in the future (and why wouldn't you?). Knoyleo shoots Sony though, so he's probably got a different take on the matter.

Can you not change the lenses on it? Because there are a lot of Pentax lenses available, cheap ones too since the image stabilisation is in the body and it can use old lenses. Still though, I kind of want to sell my K200D and get one which does video. Video on DSLRs was still pretty new when I bought one.

[Knoyleo]

I told him for a start, forget about Pentax. It's not worth the hassle or lack of choice if you want to play around with different lenses in the future (and why wouldn't you?). Knoyleo shoots Sony though, so he's probably got a different take on the matter.

Indeed I do have a different take on this. The Pentax Kr still uses the old Pentax K mount, so you actually have a vast library of old lenses to choose from. If you're looking at their new lens selection, then yeah, it's very limited, and you have less third party manufacturers producing Pentax mount lenses for it too, the same as with Sony. That being said, the selection of Sony glass that's available covers all my bases, with enough lenses available to keep me interested in the future. It's nice that Canon have 70 different lenses in production right now, but I'm never going to need all of them, and there's plenty of great old Minolta lenses doing the rounds on the second hand market for me to find anything that isn't part of Sony's "current" line up. Plus, the colour reproduction on the old Minoltas is just wonderful.

I'm not going to argue that Canon/Nikon don't offer great flexibility, they do, (Canon more so, with their straightforward EF/EF-S mounting, unlike Nikon's somewhat complex world of lens/body compatibility,) but there are other ways of achieving it. In terms of ease of accessibility, however, they do trump the competition. There were other reasons I went Sony, however. At the time, the a500 handled live view much better than the Canikon equivalents, and came with built in image stabilisation, and the ergonomics just felt better in my hands. However, I know Sony are pushing those awful SLTs now, which have no optical viewfinder, and the good old DSLRs they did are seemingly discontinued. Which leads nicely on to Bizzle's first point...

DSLRs are superior to their non reflex counterparts. Although the new EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras look to offer all the performance of a DSLR, like the large sensor, full lens selection, high speed shooting, manual control, etc. all in a tiny portable body, they're not the dreamy ultra-gadget they appear. First things first, they are electronic viewfinder only, some only coming with an LCD screen on the back. Anyone who's used a compact in bright daylight can tell you how bad that is, and you don't want to fork over all that money for a camera that offers you full exposure control, only to be unable to see what you're controlling. Others have built in viewfinders with eyepieces, that work like optical finders, but you're watching a screen instead. Again, this comes with the same issues that are inherent in compacts. What you are seeing in the finder is not live. There will be lag, and if you're trying to capture something instantly, what you're looking at will be trailing behind, you'll miss it. Also, there is viewfinder blackout. This happens in both optical finders as well as electronic ones, as the mirror flips up to expose the sensor, or the live view is switched off as the sensor is used to capture an exposure. It tends to be a longer delay on an EVF, as it is switched off before the shutter actuation, and is then not instantly switched back on. In a DSLR, you can see again the moment the mirror locks back down.

The second major drawback to EVILS concerns lenses. Theoretically, they should offer the exact same experience as a DSLR in this regard, however, there are several drawbacks. First, in order to save space, most manufacturers seem to have adopted a different mounting for their mirrorless cameras than their bigger counterparts. Sony introduced a new E mount, rather than use thier existing A mount for example. The result of this means that most EVILs have a very small selection of "native" lenses, many of which will be very basic "all round" type lenses. Most will have a short focal length prime, commonly called a pancake because of their flat shape, and a couple of small range zooms. In order to use a wider range of more interesting lenses, you'll end up using adapters, which work quite well on mirrorless cameras, because they have a very small "flange-back" distance (the distance between the rear of the mount and the film/sensor) which allows many different lenses to be adapted to them. However, depending on the adapter/lens type used, you may well lose features, like autofocus, automatic aperture control, etc.

Another lens related issue these smaller bodied cameras have is, if you try to use anything other than the super slim pancake lenses they're designed for, they begin to feel out of balance. If you want to use anything even as long as a short-tele focal length, it begins to make the camera the lens is attached to feel impractical and toylike. It very quickly reaches a point where you're mounting the camera to the lens, rather than the other way around, especially if you do end up adapting to use more lenses.

Finally, you are sacrificing ergonomics and build quality for that compact size. No grip on most of these cameras makes holding them for a prolonged period of time quite uncomfortable, and as a space saving exercise, many functions that could typically be mapped straight to buttons on the body of a full sized DSLR, get buried deep in menus, some of which must be navigated by touch screens or scroll wheels. These are also pretty delicate bits of kit. Size and weight minimisation are the priority, and that means lighter materials, and less of them, giving you a much more delicate camera to look after. Not that I'd advocate being careless with any camera, but even the most basic of entry level DSLRs can be incredibly durable, as evidenced below:



Anyway, this has gone on much longer than I intended it to.

tl;dr Get a DSLR, not a mirrorless, and stick with Canon/Nikon if you don't fancy trawling for second hand lenses or having to search harder for your accessories.