New to photography

[Rich]

There is so much more to photography than I thought there was! I will have to go to Jessops and try some of them out with different lenses. I didn't realise they would have an affect on the brightness as well. I did notice that when using the viewfinder the image looked slightly darker than on the screen.

[parthiban]

But the biggest influence on the brightness of the viewfinder is the lens that is fitted to the camera, so you should always compare SLR finders using the same lens. Many zoom lenses have relatively small apertures. My 24-105mm Canon lens is one of their L series, but has a maximum aperture of only f1:4. My 50mm prime lens has an aperture of f1:1.4.

That's a proper quality lens, my 18-105 kit lens has a maximum of 3.5 I think, I'm guessing that cost a lot of money!

 

 

@ ER: Yep that's why I was making such a big deal about trying them out, the feel is so important and what suits one person may not suit another. But the more expensive cameras get, the bigger and heavier they get (the 1000D will be a lot lighter than the 50D for example) - another thing to consider as a big zoom lens on a smaller DSLR makes it feel quite nose heavy. Either way Jessops is definitely the place to go, they generally have most bodies and lenses, and are quite relaxed about you playing with them so try every body with every lens that you're considering and see how it feels.

[Rich]

@ ER: Yep that's why I was making such a big deal about trying them out, the feel is so important and what suits one person may not suit another. But the more expensive cameras get, the bigger and heavier they get (the 1000D will be a lot lighter than the 50D for example) - another thing to consider as a big zoom lens on a smaller DSLR makes it feel quite nose heavy. Either way Jessops is definitely the place to go, they generally have most bodies and lenses, and are quite relaxed about you playing with them so try every body with every lens that you're considering and see how it feels.

 

All good points but I don't think there's that much difference in weight between the cheaper and more expensive bodies, not on paper anyway!

 

What's the score with buying second hand bodies and lenses as I could get a better spec one for what a new 1000D would cost? Trouble is if it goes wrong how much do they cost to fix or do any of you have insurance on your gear?

[parthiban]

All good points but I don't think there's that much difference in weight between the cheaper and more expensive bodies, not on paper anyway!

 

What's the score with buying second hand bodies and lenses as I could get a better spec one for what a new 1000D would cost? Trouble is if it goes wrong how much do they cost to fix or do any of you have insurance on your gear?

The 1000D weighs 450g, the 50D weighs 730g - that's 60% heavier! yes 280g isn't necessarily a massive weight but it's a noticeable difference..........

 

We have a Nikon film SLR from years ago which was repaired once when it was in use and it wasn't cheap at all. I'd hope these cameras are quite reliable though as long as they haven't been abused.

[Mark H.]

I purchased my 40D from here.

 

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equi...anon-eos-40d-3/

 

They have a few for sale at the moment as well.

[Rich]

I purchased my 40D from here.

 

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equi...anon-eos-40d-3/

 

They have a few for sale at the moment as well.

 

Even used ones ain't cheap!!

 

Steve, I've been reading up on the camera you got and I didn't realise it had video as well. Have you taken any yet, if you have can you put some up so we can see what the quality is like?

[parthiban]

This one's not a bad price, no live view or video on the D80 though........LINK

[Rich]

This one's not a bad price, no live view or video on the D80 though........LINK

 

Seems to have been sold now...

 

I am after one with live view though as I think I would miss that, video I'm not overly fussed about.

 

The Nikons I've looked at are the D3000 and D5000. Canon's I've looked at are the 1000D, 450D and 500D. I think I will go with a body that will hold it's value for longer, I don't think the 1000D will do this? I don't wanna just make do with the cheapest now, since finding out about my mum I wanna get the best I can afford, and one that will help me take some decent shots of the family.

[parthiban]

I can definitely understand that mate, to be completely honest I'm sure any of these cameras will give you great pictures. Maybe Sagitar could confirm this, but in my opinion the biggest difference as you go up through the different camera models is low light performance. I know these aren't like for like comparisons (actually it's an awful comparison as the lighting is completely different) but these are both daytime shots, one from the D90 and one from the 500D and there isn't a massive difference if any:

 

 

[Sagitar]

I don't know of any DSLR by a "name" manufacturer that is not competent technically. Comparing one with another and attempting value for money assessments is a very difficult task. It's all in the eye of the beholder. I stick with Canon kit because I have a collection of their lenses so it makes sense for me to stay with them. If I wasn't already the owner of a lot of glass (and very used to the way controls tend to work on Canon kit) then I might look at a very wide range of options.

 

You really have to decide what you want the camera to do and not get too hung up on the marketing hype.

 

There is a very good review site at DPReview where you can read detailed reviews of most cameras and where you will find lots of comments by people who actually own and use the kit.

 

If the intention is to buy one body with a general purpose zoom lens then all the manufacturers do something suitable. So, budget and the feel of the camera, i.e. whether it feels right, are key.

 

If you are going to take things further and get several lenses etc then you really do want to take your time and make sure you get the first decision right. Once you have started to collect lenses then changing manufacturer can be painfully expensive.

[Rich]

I found dpreview a couple of weeks ago and have been on there everyday reading through alot of them, it's a brilliant site and very in-depth. Look wise I prefer the Canons but until I've actually held a few I'm not making a decision to which manufacturer I'll go with. It will be either Nikon or Canon though.

 

One thing I've noticed is even the high entry level DSLR's don't have in-built anti shake so you need one with it built into the lens, but just how much more expensive are these? Is it worth getting a body with it built-in? I'm only planning on having 2 lens I won't need to build a big collection but even the Nikon D90 doesn't have it and the body alone is £600!

[parthiban]

One thing I've noticed is even the high entry level DSLR's don't have in-built anti shake so you need one with it built into the lens, but just how much more expensive are these? Is it worth getting a body with it built-in? I'm only planning on having 2 lens I won't need to build a big collection but even the Nikon D90 doesn't have it and the body alone is £600!

The anti-shake thing isn't about which model, it's which brand. Nikon and Canon only do VR in the lens, everyone else does it in the body. I think the reason is because it dates back to film cameras - they claim it still has advantages even with digital ones but I imagine it's more to do with the cost of developing it in the body and this way they can charge more for the lenses! The lenses are bl00dy expensive with VR built in, the Nikon 18-200 I want is £579, even the Sigma version isn't far off. If that's a major factor it might be worth looking at Sony - their cameras are quite highly rated and they have the VR built into the body.

 

Another feature to consider is the autofocus, some like the D90 have it in the body, some don't, although I have no idea whether that's an advantage or disadvantage - perhaps Sagitar knows the answer to this too?

 

 

 

Oh one other thing, reason why I was getting confused with prices is that I got mine at the airport. Especially if you decide to buy one of the pricier models, it might be worth planning a short holiday and picking it up in duty free as it could save you a lot of money! Dixons tax free are pretty good, you can ring them up and reserve the camera in advance.

[Sagitar]

One thing I've noticed is even the high entry level DSLR's don't have in-built anti shake so you need one with it built into the lens, but just how much more expensive are these? Is it worth getting a body with it built-in? I'm only planning on having 2 lens I won't need to build a big collection but even the Nikon D90 doesn't have it and the body alone is £600!

 

I haven't looked at image stabilisation for some time, so I am wary of making unqualified comments. However, the last time I looked, all the in-body damping was of a kind that was un-noticeable to the user when taking the picture, i.e. it stabilises the image, not the camera. In-lens stabilisation in the lenses that I use has the effect of holding the lens still in a way that is immediately noticeable to the photographer. It is like switching on a gyroscope that holds the camera steady. So it does not just improve the image, but it helps with holding the camera, framing, focusing etc. When I lift the camera with a long lens fitted and look through the viewfinder, the camera is visibly moving around. As soon as I take first pressure on the release, the stabiliser kicks in and camera stops waving about.

 

The amount of stabilisation required is a function of the focal length of the lens. It is much harder to hold a long lens still. Stabilisation does not help much with a wide angle lens - it helps a lot with a long telephoto. Putting the stabilisation into the lens means that it can be designed specifically for that lens.

 

In-body stabilisation has the undoubted advantage that you only have to buy it once and it works with any lens that you fit, but personally I prefer the in-lens version, even if it is more expensive. If I was younger and had less difficulty holding the camera still I might make a different judgement.

 

If you google on image stabilisation I am sure you will find a range of opinions on the topic and there are some good explanations in Wikipedia.

[parthiban]

The amount of stabilisation required is a function of the focal length of the lens. It is much harder to hold a long lens still. Stabilisation does not help much with a wide angle lens - it helps a lot with a long telephoto. Putting the stabilisation into the lens means that it can be designed specifically for that lens.

Ahh, so they aren't lying when they say there are benefits to in lens stabilisation? I suppose it makes sense though, a longer zoom lens will need more work than a smaller one.

 

 

Do you know about in-body vs in-lens autofocus? Is there a similar argument or does it not really matter?

[Sagitar]

Another feature to consider is the autofocus, some like the D90 have it in the body, some don't, although I have no idea whether that's an advantage or disadvantage - perhaps Sagitar knows the answer to this too?

 

I am not an expert on Nikon cameras, but I know that they have changed their approach from time to time. I believe their first autofocus camera used a motorised lens. Later they used a focusing motor in the camera body while the AF-S range of lenses have gone back to a motor in the lens. My impression is that the upper end Nikon bodies still have the motor in the body while entry level cameras use motorised lenses. I have no idea what happens if you use an AF-S lens on a body with a motor. Perhaps a Nikon user can correct me if I have any of this wrong.

 

There is no similar issue with Canon. All their EOS lenses have the motor in the lens. The motor designs vary and some of them are much quicker and quieter than others. They do however make a range of lenses that will not fit onto their full frame cameras. Lenses designated EF will fit any of the EOS bodies while lenses designated EF-S will not cover a full 35mm frame and are intended to work only with those EOS bodies that have the smaller (i.e. 1.6x) sensor.

 

I really have no idea what design philosophy leads to putting the motor in the body or in the lens. I suspect that the balancing decisions are complex.

 

It may reduce the cost and weight of the lens if the motor is in the body, but putting the motor into the body means that it has to be capable of driving the focusing mechanism of the biggest lenses, so that implies a bigger body.

 

There might also be issues about communication between lens and body. One of the commonest sources of error messages on cameras is poor contact between lens and body - dirty contacts more often than not. It should not arise with the motor in the body.

 

On the other hand it ought to be easier to make electrical contacts than to provide reliable, stiff, mechanical linkages. An interesting topic but I am really just speculating.

[Sagitar]

Sorry, I'm nodding off, it's late.

 

I should have said at the end of the previous post that from the user's performance point of view I don't believe there is any generalisation that you can make about in-lens or in-body focusing motors. You really have to know what you want to use the individual camera/lens combination for and then check on the performance of that combination.

 

For example, if you are photographing motor sport you want reasonable focusing accuracy (say to within on third of the depth of field) but you want to focus very quickly and to maintain focus once it is locked on.

 

For static copying you want very precise focus but the speed at which this is achieved is relatively unimportant.

 

For macro photography accuracy and speed may both be important, but macro lenses have lots of movement so you don't want focusing that "hunts".

 

If you check the ability of particular lenses and bodies to do these things, I don't believe you'll find any general advantage related to whether the motor is in the body or the lens.

[parthiban]

Thanks for that explanation, it's really helpful. I didn't think there was a big difference, just wondered why the different options existed. Only difference I notice with the Nikon vs. the Canon, is that when focusing nothing moves on the Nikon lens whereas on the Canon the end of it turns - doesn't really make any difference as long as you remember to keep your fingers off it, just an observation really

[Sagitar]

Only difference I notice with the Nikon vs. the Canon, is that when focusing nothing moves on the Nikon lens whereas on the Canon the end of it turns

 

Not all Canon lenses do that. I have more than a dozen and none of them rotate as they focus (or zoom). I would not buy a lens that did. All my wide angle lenses use "petal" hoods and it is vital that they stay aligned to the frame. If I fit a graduated filter, a polarising filter or a ring flash I don't want it to rotate when I focus.

 

Some of my lenses focus internally, i.e. the relationship of the elements alters without changing the external shape of the lens. This is ideal because it means that no air (and its associated muck) is expelled or drawn in to the lens when it operates. Some of them extend externally, because, I guess, it is impractical to do it any other way - the most obvious examples are long zoom lenses (such as the 100-400) and large magnification macro lenses.

[parthiban]

Oh, that's interesting, I assumed it was the difference between body and lens auto focus - this is the lens he has so it's not a cheapo one or anything, is it the pro lenses then that don't do it or the normal ones too?

 

Canon EF-S 18-200

 

It's the second portion down in that picture (the ribbed ring) that rotates, so I assume that anything attached to the front of the lens wouldn't rotate?

[Sagitar]

Oh, that's interesting, I assumed it was the difference between body and lens auto focus - this is the lens he has so it's not a cheapo one or anything, is it the pro lenses then that don't do it or the normal ones too?

 

Canon EF-S 18-200

 

It's the second portion down in that picture (the ribbed ring) that rotates, so I assume that anything attached to the front of the lens wouldn't rotate?

 

That's the focusing ring; the ring that you rotate to focus the lens manually and it is independent of the front element of the lens. Some lenses have the manual focus ring permanently activated (as this one appears to from what you say) so that you can tweak the focus even when it is set to auto-focus. Others engage the focusing ring only when manual focus is selected.

 

If you look up the lens hood for this lens it is a petal shaped hood so clearly the front element does not rotate.

 

There is a technical report on the lens here from which you can see that focusing is achieved by moving one of the internal lens groups (G2) - so no movement of the front element in focusing. The lens length increases when zooming, but no rotation of the front element is indicated.

[parthiban]

Yeah I'm pretty sure the hood doesn't rotate, it's just that ring. But the Nikon lens also has a permanently engaged focus ring (you can use it to fine tune after the autofocus has finished) but it doesn't turn when the autofocus is working. I assume it's just differences between manufacturers........

 

Reminds me of our old film SLR, that lens rotated and the physical length of the lens would vary during focusing - I'm guessing that's focusing externally then.

 

Thanks for letting me pick your brain on this stuff, it's always great to try to understand stuff rather than just trust that it works

[Steve-O]

Hi All,

 

Just managed to piggy-back onto an open router at paphos airport, first time I have been online for a week.

 

I've been snapping away doing my worst and I think I have used just over half of my 16gb card at 15mp! the cameras saying 1200+ images...

 

Anyway tomorrow hopefully I will get a few pics up (providing any come out ok lol!) including some video footage, some of which is 1080p and some is a bit less.

[Tony]

[Rich]

One thing I've noticed is even the high entry level DSLR's don't have in-built anti shake so you need one with it built into the lens, but just how much more expensive are these? Is it worth getting a body with it built-in? I'm only planning on having 2 lens I won't need to build a big collection but even the Nikon D90 doesn't have it and the body alone is £600!

 

I haven't looked at image stabilisation for some time, so I am wary of making unqualified comments. However, the last time I looked, all the in-body damping was of a kind that was un-noticeable to the user when taking the picture, i.e. it stabilises the image, not the camera. In-lens stabilisation in the lenses that I use has the effect of holding the lens still in a way that is immediately noticeable to the photographer. It is like switching on a gyroscope that holds the camera steady. So it does not just improve the image, but it helps with holding the camera, framing, focusing etc. When I lift the camera with a long lens fitted and look through the viewfinder, the camera is visibly moving around. As soon as I take first pressure on the release, the stabiliser kicks in and camera stops waving about.

 

The amount of stabilisation required is a function of the focal length of the lens. It is much harder to hold a long lens still. Stabilisation does not help much with a wide angle lens - it helps a lot with a long telephoto. Putting the stabilisation into the lens means that it can be designed specifically for that lens.

 

In-body stabilisation has the undoubted advantage that you only have to buy it once and it works with any lens that you fit, but personally I prefer the in-lens version, even if it is more expensive. If I was younger and had less difficulty holding the camera still I might make a different judgement.

 

If you google on image stabilisation I am sure you will find a range of opinions on the topic and there are some good explanations in Wikipedia.

 

You make some good points there and I would imagine having the IS in the lens would be a better thing.

 

Hi All,

 

Just managed to piggy-back onto an open router at paphos airport, first time I have been online for a week.

 

I've been snapping away doing my worst and I think I have used just over half of my 16gb card at 15mp! the cameras saying 1200+ images...

 

Anyway tomorrow hopefully I will get a few pics up (providing any come out ok lol!) including some video footage, some of which is 1080p and some is a bit less.

 

Can't wait mate...how big is each image for RAW and Jpeg then?

[parthiban]

I've been snapping away doing my worst and I think I have used just over half of my 16gb card at 15mp! the cameras saying 1200+ images...

Looking forward to the pics!

 

Are those JPEGs btw, as mine only gets about 720 images or so on a 16gb card when I have it as RAW+JPEG? On mine a JPEG is roughly half the size of a RAW, about 11mb for a RAW and 5mb for a JPEG.