Advice/Questions on buying Cameras & Accessories. **Please read OP first**

hbr

shemwhistler wrote: »

Thanks hbr, so in real simple terms on the lens the larger the mm the narrower it is?

Yes. Longer focal length gives a narrower view.

And the sensor you have can reduce the 'actual' lens mm to I guess a 'perceived' mm value.

35mm film cameras have become widely accepted as the standard
for film and sensor size. When considering sensors of a different size,
it is common practice to use the 35mm film system as a reference.
As a simple example, the smaller sensor used in the four-thirds
system cameras have a crop factor of around 2. This means that a
lens with a focal length of 25mm would have a field of view equivalent
to a 50mm lens used on a 35mm film camera.

The crop factor of the APC-C size sensor in your Canon is approximately
1.6. This means the standard 18-55mm zoom lens is equivalent to
29-88mm. Compact and bridge cameras have very small sensors and
correspondingly short focal lengths. My Panasonic FZ28 lens spec is:

Optical 18x zoom, fl4.8 mm to 86.4 mm (35 mm film camera
equivalent: 27 mm to 486 mm)

Most photographers would not have a clue what to expect from
a camera with FL=4.8mm, but almost everybody knows that
27mm equivalent is a reasonably wide angle lens.

So a more expensive body with a better sensor will use all of the lens.

Yes, particularly in the case of a lens which was designed for full frame. Canon
EF-S lenses are optimised for crop sensor cameras and they are physically
incompatible with full frame cameras. Some third party lenses for crop
sensor cameras will fit, but they will suffer from severe vignetting because they
are designed for the smaller image circle of a crop sensor.

Your 1000D is compatible with both EF-S and EF lenses, so you don't
have to worry about this unless you are planning to upgrade to a full frame
camera in the future.

I hope that's right, and if it is it's finally starting to sink in

If not, bugger.

I think you have got the general idea. You are quite right, optics are a
bugger to understand.

dmckenna50

hbr wrote: »

If you have the 18-55mm IS, you already have a fairly good lens.



Well then you should keep your money in the piggy-bank
for now.



The 18-55mm is pretty good for that.

The 18-55m is not so good for low light and/or fast action. Because
if it's limited focal length, it is not good for some types of wildlife or
sports photography.

I get the feeling that you have a few quid burning a hole in your pocket
and you are not sure what you should do with it. This leaves you at
risk of buying something you don't need or won't use. You should only
buy a new lens when you have a clear idea of what you want to achieve.

A few examples:

Low light portraits: Fast prime lens. The 50mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 USM.

Macro and close up: Canon (or other brand) macro lens. Canon 100mm f/2.8 or Sigma/Tamron/Tokina equivalent.

Sports/wildlife Canon or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8




I find adverts.ie and eBay are very good. You need to be alert for fraudsters.
Some of the adverts.ie sellers are regular posters here on boards. Check feedback
and posting history carefully.

I think I love you. THANKS!

shemwhistler

Thanks hbr.

That's the best I've seen that explained, it's actually starting to sink in.

Really appreciate it.
Matt

Gumbo

Guys, will hopefully have my new Canon 550d body delivered by this time next week (1st DSLR)

I have an old 35-80mm lens to use out of the box but i plan on trying to pick up a kit 18-55 lens to get me started properly with the next goal to get a "nifty fivety".

I will be mainly using the camer in town, at home and out and about, ie. no building sites or anything like that but i presume its still advisable to fit a protective filter to the lens?

some people say its just a clear filter so that when your out and about if dirt gets on it, your not afraid to simply wipe the filter as opposed to the lens surface itself.

What is the proper name for these and is there any particular brands/style/type i should be looking for?

Thanks. (this forum has been so helpful so far, so a big thanks to all )

steve_

Some filter can have undesired results such as lower contrast, if your worried about scratching the glass then get a lens hood this will protect it a bit more even though its not its primary purpose. If you do get dirt of you lens just invest in some decent tools to clean in up. The more careful you are the less you'll need to spend on other stuff like filters. Obviously some filters give a nice effects if thats what your after. Uv filters are just money spinners and are call backs from the old days when film was more susceptible to UV light. On DSLR's UV filters have virtually no impact and can make you pics look worse unless you fork out for pro filters

hbr

kceire wrote: »

I will be mainly using the camer in town, at home and out and about, ie. no building sites or anything like that but i presume its still advisable to fit a protective filter to the lens?

I really wouldn't bother. A good quality filter will cost as much as
a replacement 35-80mm lens. It won't enhance your photographs in
any way. It could and probably would cause increased flare and
reflections when you are shooting towards the sun.

I agree with Steve, a cheap lens hood will give as much protection
and it may even improve your photographs under some conditions.
I had a look on eBay and I couldn't find any cheap Chinese copies
of the Canon hood for the 35-80mm. There are a few genuine Canon
hoods, but they are a bit more expensive.

Neilw

Hi all,

I'm looking for a starter dslr, would like a couple of lenses, 18-55/55-250 or 300.
My question is am I better buying the body on it's own and then buy lenses seperate or stick with what comes with the kit? I'm considering the Canon T2i (550d).
Example.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-18-55mm-55-250mm-Accessory/dp/B003ABS5OY/ref=sr_1_50?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1316236430&sr=1-50

Are canon lenses good, I wouldn't mind spending a little extra if I could get better lenses?

Thanks,
Neil.

nicknackgtb

What would your preference be for shooting moving objects?

I shoot car racing and am using a 30 d at the minute. I have been winding myself up to buy a 7d, but just seen a mkiii up on adverts for 1000 euro.

What are peoples opinions of these?

Cheers

Paulw

1D MkIII in a heartbeat. No competition there.

1D - solid build. 10 fps. Weather sealed. Very good IQ. Designed for sport.
7D does have slightly better ISO performance, and has video, but these may be less important for you.

LowOdour

Hi guys,
I purchased a sony cyber-shot DSC-H70 yesterday as I needed a camera for my holiday to florida/disney world next week. Was in a hurry, so needed to pick up something. It cost 225, but I read reviews on it last night and seems like there are a few cons with it, like overexposed photos take outdoors, slow auto focus etc.

I haven't opened the box, so can still take it back.

Could anybody tell me if this camera is worth keeping, seeing that I wont be able to afford much more than it.....or if there was a better one that I could get in a similar price range.

I would probably need to go to argos/currys/DID electrical to get one as I wouldn't trust that the package would arrive by next week.

Please help!

alowe

Fewcifur wrote: »

When it comes to compacts, tis hard to beat an aul Canon Ixus, or so I've always found.

Fewcifur - thanks for that. The cheapest ixus appears to be around the €180 mark ... is there any other one you'd recommend thats closer to €100.

I've borrowed my mum's one (sony w380), and the shutter speed is great on it - but i'm hoping I can get the same speed on one thats cheaper then 180e.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Hi guys.

Thinking of buying a new camera as it seems that something has gotten into the lens of my old sony and it now refuses to work! (Or if someone could fix that it'd be great!

I'm not looking for much, just a cheap enough Point and Shoot. I'd love a DSLR and to be able to gfet into photography properly but I just can't justify the expense1
I would like a fast enough camera that takes pictures quickly as my last camera was brutally slow! Also I wouldn't mind it to have the color accent feature that you can find on some Canons and also Sonys I think. But that isn't really an essential.

Any recommendations or even any way of working out how fast a camera would be?

Also where would be the best place to buy? I've been looking at argos atm and they have some good prices but nothing seems to be in stock!

LowOdour

LowOdour wrote: »

Hi guys,
I purchased a sony cyber-shot DSC-H70 yesterday as I needed a camera for my holiday to florida/disney world next week. Was in a hurry, so needed to pick up something. It cost 225, but I read reviews on it last night and seems like there are a few cons with it, like overexposed photos take outdoors, slow auto focus etc.

I haven't opened the box, so can still take it back.

Could anybody tell me if this camera is worth keeping, seeing that I wont be able to afford much more than it.....or if there was a better one that I could get in a similar price range.

I would probably need to go to argos/currys/DID electrical to get one as I wouldn't trust that the package would arrive by next week.

Please help!

dixons in Dublin airport have good prices. go to dixons shop, look at cameras, pick the one you want then buy it at airport.

LowOdour

LowOdour wrote: »

Hi guys,
I purchased a sony cyber-shot DSC-H70 yesterday.

Could anybody tell me if this camera is worth keeping, seeing that I wont be able to afford much more than it.....or if there was a better one that I could get in a similar price range. .

Please help!

there are hundreds and hundreds of different point and shoot models. it's unlikely that anyone on this forum will be familiar with that model. most of the focus here is on dslrs and lens for same, not point and shoots. read reviews on amazon and on camera sites. same goes for finding a good p+s shoot model.

9wetfckx43j5rg

I need some help choosing a lens/lenses.

I work as a freelance photographer for a local newspaper. All summer I've been using a Canon 300D, with the standard kit lens. I'm upgrading to the Canon 40D. What lens comes as the kit lens for it? I'm considering buying the body only, and then buying lenses.

The kit lens on the 300D worked fine for my job, so I don't really need anything better, just the 40D version of it.

Is there a lens that has specs similar to a kit lens that I could also use for gig photography? I've managed to get some decent gig shots with the 300D but only when the performers are well lit. So I need a lens that has a wider aperture range than the 300 kit lens (lowest aperture was 3.5).

Budget for a lens is about 100 euro. Will be buying online.

alfalad

Just got my hands on a Canon 60D as a present and it was the body only, so now going to buy a lens for it. I'm been researching for a while (long before i got the camera) and have decided on the Canon 15-85, seems like a very good all round piece of glass. But has anyone any other suggestions instead of it?

Also looking for a book to help me get the best out of it (at my earlier stage) any suggestions?

Thanks.

hbr

alfalad wrote: »

Just got my hands on a Canon 60D as a present and it was the body only, so now going to buy a lens for it. I'm been researching for a while (long before i got the camera) and have decided on the Canon 15-85, seems like a very good all round piece of glass.
Thanks.

The 15-85mm is probably best-in-class. It has better optics,
faster AF and better build quality than the 18-135mm kit lens.

But has anyone any other suggestions instead of it?

It depends on what your priorities are. My current favourite is the
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (non-VC version).
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/289-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review

hbr

Genesis Some Beard wrote: »

Is there a lens that has specs similar to a kit lens that I could also use for gig photography? I've managed to get some decent gig shots with the 300D but only when the performers are well lit. So I need a lens that has a wider aperture range than the 300 kit lens (lowest aperture was 3.5).

Budget for a lens is about 100 euro. Will be buying online.

You can pick up a used Canon 18-55mm IS lens on adverts.ie for less
than €100. There is one offered for €75 at the moment.

If you want something with a larger aperture, you will probably have
to pay well over your budget.

rain on

hbr wrote: »

You can pick up a used Canon 18-55mm IS lens on adverts.ie for less
than €100. There is one offered for €75 at the moment.

If you want something with a larger aperture, you will probably have
to pay well over your budget.

That's most likely what she has already if she's using the kit lens, and the aperture on it only goes to 3.5 anyway.


To answer the question, the 50mm 1.8 is probably the only lens you'll get within that budget, and it's actually pretty good for gig photography if you don't mind not having any zoom.

alfalad

hbr wrote: »

It depends on what your priorities are. My current favourite is the
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (non-VC version).
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/289-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review

Thanks for the recommendation but think i'd miss the 50-80 as that's one of it's advantages to me of the canon. Looking for the sort of lens that I will great to have as a walk around/everyday lens, something that I won't wish I spent a little more on in 6 months time. This will be the only lens i have for it for the next while so hence i'm trying to get the best of every world.

Gumbo

rain on wrote: »

That's most likely what she has already if she's using the kit lens, and the aperture on it only goes to 3.5 anyway.


To answer the question, the 50mm 1.8 is probably the only lens you'll get within that budget, and it's actually pretty good for gig photography if you don't mind not having any zoom.

Camera Exchange on Georges Street, Dublin have it for €129.

hbr

rain on wrote: »

That's most likely what she has already if she's using the kit lens, and the aperture on it only goes to 3.5 anyway.

If she still has the 300D kit lens, that would work fine on the 40D. It might
be worth getting the 18-55mm IS anyway, just for the ~3 stops benefit of
the image stabiliser.

To answer the question, the 50mm 1.8 is probably the only lens you'll get within that budget, and it's actually pretty good for gig photography if you don't mind not having any zoom.

That would be a good option for gigs. I think it would be a bit narrow for
most other purposes. A combination of the 18-55mm and the 50mm f/1.8
would cover most situations.

hbr

alfalad wrote: »

Looking for the sort of lens that I will great to have as a walk around/everyday lens, something that I won't wish I spent a little more on in 6 months time. This will be the only lens i have for it for the next while so hence i'm trying to get the best of every world.

If you need the extra reach, the 15-85mm is probably the lens for you.
A two lens solution might be a better option, but maybe you don't like
changing lenses in the field?

rain on

hbr wrote: »

If she still has the 300D kit lens, that would work fine on the 40D. It might
be worth getting the 18-55mm IS anyway, just for the ~3 stops benefit of
the image stabiliser.

It is a grand lens generally and the IS is handy, but I find it completely useless for gigs unless it's on a body where you can go into the 3000s with your ISO.

The tiny depth of field on the 50mm 1.8 takes a bit of getting used to but it's well worth it for all the extra light you can get in.

Anyone know a decent P+S that has a decent optical zoom and time lapse?

fodda

I was in to photography for years and the last camera and lens i bought was a canon 20d and a canon ef 24-70mm L usm lens.

I have hardly touched this in 4 years are they both totally obsolete now, i should imagine the camera is but is the lens still usable to the latest cameras?

hbr

fodda wrote: »

I was in to photography for years and the last camera and lens i bought was a canon 20d and a canon ef 24-70mm L usm lens which has only been off twice i think when the camera was sent to be cleaned.

I have hardly touched this in 4 years are they both totally obsolete now, i should imagine the camera is but is the lens still usable to the latest cameras?

The 24-70mm is anything but obsolete. It will work on any of the newer
Canon DSLRs. The 20D has been around a while, but it is still a
fine camera. If the camera has been shelved for four years, the
battery may be in poor condition.

fodda

Thanks, no all is ok as used it recently for some pics for websites which it is great for but went past a photographers recently and they had large prints on the wall from 20 megapixal cameras?? I think my 20d was only 8.2 and did A4 pics.

Just wondered if it was worth keeping or get a new camera. I dont have time for taking pics anymore and early morning landscape photos are a killer as you get older but not interested in those anymore. Got a few other ideas though so worth upgrading camera or stay with 20d?

hbr

fodda wrote: »

I think my 20d was only 8.2 and did A4 pics.

Just to put things in perspective, full HD TV is just over 2MP. I have got some
very nice A4 prints from my 4MP Fujifilm compact. 8MP is more than enough
for most of us.

Just wondered if it was worth keeping or get a new camera. I dont have time for taking pics anymore and early morning landscape photos are a killer as you get older but not interested in those anymore. Got a few other ideas though so worth upgrading camera or stay with 20d?

I think you have answered your own question " I dont have time for taking pics anymore"
It would be a shame to buy the modern equivalent of the 20D (60D or 7D) and then leave
it on the shelf for the next four years.

The newer models have:
Greater resolution. Usually more than you will need.
Better sensitivity. Better high ISO performance.
Bigger LCD display. IMHO this is one of the most significant improvements.
Live view mode. So you can compose your shots on the LCD.
HD video. If you are interested in that sort of thing.
Advanced features like electronic level, HDR, panorama, in-camera
editing......

fodda

Thanks hbr i think you are right.:)