|
Chalets the Baka posted:Haven't heard of that site before, thanks for the tip. Would there be any reason to consider a modern crop sensor instead, or does having a full-frame trump feature improvements? Assuming manual controls only. Theres no real reason to consider crop over full frame. Its all about what your willing to throw at it money wise. If its your first camera, I would throw money at lenses, and get an inexpensive body. Bodies degrade in value and tech so drat fast while the lenses will outlive you. Even the cheapest intro body has full manual controls, even if you gotta use a dial+button to make adjustments. There are also APS-C (crop sensors, not M43 tinyframe) mirrorless systems that are amazing for inexpensive price points.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
Soulex posted:depends on what you're trying to do. I am getting into sports photography, and crop sensor is superior in terms of speed and everything. I would assume that portrait/landscape photography would be more geared towards full frame. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:How on earth is a crop sensor faster than a fullframe one? The only thing a crop sensor has is the additional reach and DOF due to the crop factor, for everything else, the FF has the advantage. As far as speed goes, the FF is actually better, since you can crank up the ISO more to same effect in regards to noise. I think maybe he's saying theoretically they could make faster frame rate crop sensors since the files are smaller? (Given the same cpu power in the camera) It's a moot point though since Canon and Nikon both deal with that by dropping the mpix count on their pro pro FF bodies and throwing a crapton of cpu's in them so they can fire like machine guns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
I think at this point, only the D800 and A7R have the huge pixel counts. Other than that, from what I know, most FF models have similar megapixel counts like their APS-C siblings. Say for Canon, the 6D's 20MP and 5D3's 22MP counts aren't that far removed from the 550D and upwards 18MP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I think at this point, only the D800 and A7R have the huge pixel counts. Other than that, from what I know, most FF models have similar megapixel counts like their APS-C siblings. Say for Canon, the 6D's 20MP and 5D3's 22MP counts aren't that far removed from the 550D and upwards 18MP. True. I was just trying to come up with the logic that might have been behind the statement. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Musket posted:Theres no real reason to consider crop over full frame. What? No no no no. If you're doing a lot of wildlife photography or sports photography using telephoto lenses then there is absolutely a good reason to go with a crop sensor. Unless of course you've got a completely ridiculous budget for even larger telephoto lenses. Especially in this thread for people new to dslr photography, that is terrible advice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:What? No no no no. If you're doing a lot of wildlife photography or sports photography using telephoto lenses then there is absolutely a good reason to go with a crop sensor. Unless of course you've got a completely ridiculous budget for even larger telephoto lenses. This is pretty much the reason I have no desire for full-frame, if 200mm feels too short on crop, it's sure as hell not going to get any better on full frame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:What? No no no no. If you're doing a lot of wildlife photography or sports photography using telephoto lenses then there is absolutely a good reason to go with a crop sensor. Unless of course you've got a completely ridiculous budget for even larger telephoto lenses. Pretty much this. Compare the Mkiii to the 7D or 70D as far as buffering and FPS. MKiii is a full frame, and falls behind in terms of trying to shoot spots, and wildlife. Full frame could be good, but I don't have the 7k to spend on a 1D. Granted the AF system of the 5mkiii is superior, and is a better camera all around, but actually looking into getting a camera with an emphasis on sports, there just aren't that many affordable full frame options that can keep up with the 7D or 70D canon wise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
Take it from someone with both FX and APSC cameras: there are a lot of reasons (on top of cost) to use crop sensors cameras.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
For what its worth, cropping the 22.3mp of the 5D3 down to the 18mp of the 7D gives an effective factor of 1.23 so a small portion of the "reach" is recoverable for no downside. So do you mount a likely narrow aperture telephoto (beacause $$$) on a FF body you know will let you crank the ISO or a crop body you know will give you the reach? Its time to bring back the APS-H sensors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
I'm leaning towards going with the 5D classic; the images produced by the FF just look so good compared even to the 7D. However, is going for an L lens worth the cost? I'm looking at Canon's 50mm f/1.4 for a starter lens, and I'm having a hard time believing I'd get $1,000 extra worth of quality out of the 50mm f/1.2. Would I be squandering the camera's potential if I went with the "cheapo" lens?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:I'm leaning towards going with the 5D classic; the images produced by the FF just look so good compared even to the 7D. However, is going for an L lens worth the cost? I'm looking at Canon's 50mm f/1.4 for a starter lens, and I'm having a hard time believing I'd get $1,000 extra worth of quality out of the 50mm f/1.2. Would I be squandering the camera's potential if I went with the "cheapo" lens? That 1.2 doesn't get you 1000$ worth of extra quality, just 1000$ worth of extra aperture
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:That 1.2 doesn't get you 1000$ worth of extra quality, just 1000$ worth of extra aperture There's folks who'll say you're not even getting the extra aperture due to how digital sensors record light. Something about the angle of light and the pixel walls idk I'm not a scientist. What you will get is a lot of people saying you get $1000 worth of "draws beautifully". If you want a good 50 you might want to hold out for the new Sigma to drop, which is supposedly gonna be soon. Its supposed to blow everything Canon and Nikon out of the water for half the price of the 1.2L.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:There's folks who'll say you're not even getting the extra aperture due to how digital sensors record light. Something about the angle of light and the pixel walls idk I'm not a scientist. What you will get is a lot of people saying you get $1000 worth of "draws beautifully". If you want a good 50 you might want to hold out for the new Sigma to drop, which is supposedly gonna be soon. Its supposed to blow everything Canon and Nikon out of the water for half the price of the 1.2L. Or 1000$ worth of heavy. The 1.4 is nice if you need/want the extra aperture for available light Chalets, but it's not a super duper performer wide open. The af motor on it is also delicate, but it works a lot better than the one on the 1.8, so I prefer it even for the extra cost. The sigma is supposed to be pimp if you believe their hype, but it will also be twice as much + (800-900$ likely). So picks your poison. Maybe get the plastic fantastic until the sig comes out
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
I was dumb and missed this thread, and posted in the Canon thread instead. My wife and I are itching to get into a DSLR after she used a film SLR through college and then didn't touch it for the past ~10 years (mostly due to costs related to film I think). I've fiddled with a couple here and there, but until now the best camera I've used regularly has been a hand-me-down PowerShot G9. I'll probably use the DSLR more, but she has been lamenting the fact that she put the hobby down for so long. We don't have a huge budget, we're trying to keep the initial outlay at or under $1k - including the body+kit lens at least, a bag, memory card and probably a spare battery. The bag probably doesn't need to happen immediately as we could feasibly use the one that has been housing her neglected FM10 for so long. We're leaning towards the SL1. It seems to be a bit better value than a T3/5i for us (as in it seems to have all of the same features for a little lower price), the only (possible) drawback being the size. I found a bundle on Amazon with the body, 18-55mm kit lens and a 55-250 telephoto lens for $700 with Prime (and no tax). There's also a similar kit on B&H for less, with a different second lens. As for what we want to shoot, it'll be mostly nature/landscape/animals and stuff when we go hiking, action shots of pets, and eventually I'd like to get into macro. Is this an ok starting point to dive in? Can someone explain the difference between the two telephoto lenses?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
sirbeefalot posted:I was dumb and missed this thread, and posted in the Canon thread instead. The 75-300 is a terrible lens, don't bother there. With the 55-250, the new stm version has better optics, but is more money. The version there is still pretty decent and way way better than the 75-300. The sl1 is a nice little camera - my wife is getting one for Mother's Day this year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:The 75-300 is a terrible lens, don't bother there. With the 55-250, the new stm version has better optics, but is more money. The version there is still pretty decent and way way better than the 75-300. The sl1 is a nice little camera - my wife is getting one for Mother's Day this year. Is this the newer version of the 55-250 you're talking about? If it is, it looks like I can combine the body + 18-55 kit lens with that on B&H for right around the same price as Amazon's kit. VV Wow, huge difference. Awesome! Now I wait. 
sirbeefalot fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
sirbeefalot posted:Is this the newer version of the 55-250 you're talking about? If it is, it looks like I can combine the body + 18-55 kit lens with that on B&H for right around the same price as Amazon's kit. Yes , that's the one. The new stm version had an optical overhaul and it's a much better lens for it. Check the difference in the long end here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...omp=5&APIComp=1 timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
I really need to put "Seriously, buy used gear" somewhere in the thread title. KEH LN and EX+ grade stuff is effectively the same as buying it new, even down to manuals and poo poo often. I'd feel a lot better about saying this if KEH's site wasn't so godawful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:I'm leaning towards going with the 5D classic; the images produced by the FF just look so good compared even to the 7D. However, is going for an L lens worth the cost? I'm looking at Canon's 50mm f/1.4 for a starter lens, and I'm having a hard time believing I'd get $1,000 extra worth of quality out of the 50mm f/1.2. Would I be squandering the camera's potential if I went with the "cheapo" lens? Buy the 40mm F2.8 It's $150 of tack sharp awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I really need to put "Seriously, buy used gear" somewhere in the thread title. KEH LN and EX+ grade stuff is effectively the same as buying it new, even down to manuals and poo poo often. Luckily they list a lot of it on amazon!
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:I'm leaning towards going with the 5D classic; the images produced by the FF just look so good compared even to the 7D. However, is going for an L lens worth the cost? I'm looking at Canon's 50mm f/1.4 for a starter lens, and I'm having a hard time believing I'd get $1,000 extra worth of quality out of the 50mm f/1.2. Would I be squandering the camera's potential if I went with the "cheapo" lens? I only know two people with the 50 1.4 and both of them hate the micro USM focusing on it. I'm not saying it's worth the jump to the 50 1.2, just do your research. Perhaps others here have had better luck and can provide more than my anecdotal evidence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
Spime Wrangler posted:Buy the 40mm F2.8
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I really need to put "Seriously, buy used gear" somewhere in the thread title. KEH LN and EX+ grade stuff is effectively the same as buying it new, even down to manuals and poo poo often. I have never bought any gear new. There is simply no reason to. The only thing you get is to be able to say that no one else has taken a photo using your camera. Best part is selling glass for the same price you bought it for. It's like a free rental.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:I have never bought any gear new. There is simply no reason to. The only thing you get is to be able to say that no one else has taken a photo using your camera. Best part is selling glass for the same price you bought it for. It's like a free rental. DSLRs, like cars, are best bought lightly used. And lenses are best if they were made for film in the '90s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 09:44
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:DSLRs, like cars, are best bought lightly used. And lenses are best if they were made for film in the '90s. The best lenses are Elmarit and Summilux made in the 60s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Musket posted:The best lenses are Elmarit and Summilux made in the 60s. Autofocus lenses, I meant. If Olympus hadn't had to be all different and innovative and make a new mount for digital, I'd be rocking my dad's '70s Zuikos on a DSLR right now. I guess I'm a bit spoiled, though, Nikon's the only one that never changed the mount, aren't they? It's amusing that my film SLR was one of the smallest there was, yet I don't feel comfortable with a DSLR smaller than a D1.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Autofocus lenses, I meant. If Olympus hadn't had to be all different and innovative and make a new mount for digital, I'd be rocking my dad's '70s Zuikos on a DSLR right now. I guess I'm a bit spoiled, though, Nikon's the only one that never changed the mount, aren't they? Pentax hasn't changed their mount either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Do this if you have a FFrame camera. If nikon made one I'd get in a heartbeat. Makes your camera so much easier to pack as well. I went ahead and did this. The body was "bargain" quality according to KEH but it's immaculate per my own cursory inspection - not sure about actuations. Unfortunately the camera has been sitting unused since Saturday because I believed that the walking-distance Best Buy would carry CF cards at a reasonable price. The much cheaper, much larger CF card will arrive on Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
(Probably dumb) Question about EF vs EF-S lenses on a Canon SL1: Is the focal length on the EF-S lenses already the true focal length on that body, or am I supposed to apply the focal length multiplier to figure it out? It makes sense to me that it would be the former as the lenses are made for the smaller sensor, but I can't figure that out. Should I just not even worry about it unless I'm looking at getting a regular EF lens at some point?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
sirbeefalot posted:(Probably dumb) Question about EF vs EF-S lenses on a Canon SL1: Is the focal length on the EF-S lenses already the true focal length on that body, or am I supposed to apply the focal length multiplier to figure it out? It makes sense to me that it would be the former as the lenses are made for the smaller sensor, but I can't figure that out. Should I just not even worry about it unless I'm looking at getting a regular EF lens at some point? It's the true focal length of the lens, which doesn't change based on sensor/film size. What you're talking about are 35mm equivalents, which is just an easy way to think of the field of view if you're used to 35mm cameras. 18mm lens is always an 18mm lens, but has the same field of view on APS as a 28mm lens does on a FF camera Edit: so, the 18-55 ef-s has a similar field of view as a 28-80 on FF. But, it's still an 18-55mm lens, since that's a descriptor of the lens itself. timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:It's the true focal length of the lens, which doesn't change based on sensor/film size. What you're talking about are 35mm equivalents, which is just an easy way to think of the field of view if you're used to 35mm cameras. 18mm lens is always an 18mm lens, but has the same field of view on APS as a 28mm lens does on a FF camera That makes more sense, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Here is something quick i drew up that would explain it in picture form. Sensor size isn't completely accurate but it should explain it
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
sirbeefalot posted:That makes more sense, thanks. No problem - if you never gave much thought to lens focal lengths on 35mm cameras, just put it out of your head because the whole exercise is moot. It was really a system to make it easier for people who were ingrained with 35mm thought process, which IMO has caused almost as much confusion as it has helped alleviate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
So with an EF and EF-S lens of equal focal length on my SL1, I'll get a smaller portion of the scene with the EF lens... is that right? In other words the EF lens would appear more zoomed in? Or am I totally off base and they would both give me the same field of view?
sirbeefalot fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
sirbeefalot posted:So with an EF and EF-S lens of equal focal length on my SL1, I'll get a smaller portion of the scene with the EF lens... is that right? In other words the EF lens would appear more zoomed in? Or am I totally off base and they would both give me the same field of view? No, both lenses would give you the same Field of View on the SL1. Focal length never ever changes, it's the effective field of view that does (since the size of the image circle projected onto the sensor, or the size of the sensor). If you were to use both lenses on a FF camera the EF lens would work fine, but the EF-S lens would leave a black circle since it doesn't project a big enough image to cover a FF sensor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
sirbeefalot posted:So with an EF and EF-S lens of equal focal length on my SL1, I'll get a smaller portion of the scene with the EF lens... is that right? In other words the EF lens would appear more zoomed in? Or am I totally off base and they would both give me the same field of view? A 28mm EF lens, and a 28mm EF-S lens would give you the same field of view on your SL1 A 28MM EF lens on a full frame camera, would give a wider field of view than your SL1 Focal length = focal length, regardless of format. But focal length X gives a different field of view on a small sensor point and shoot than it does on m4/3, than it does on APS, than it does on 35mm, than it does on 120, than it does on 4x5, etc, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Honestly, while simplified, the dude who did the drawings probably made the easiest-to-understand version of this always-confusing explanation that I've ever seen. I might add some text to it and throw it in the OP or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Awesome! I appreciate it. I figured I was over thinking it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Honestly, while simplified, the dude who did the drawings probably made the easiest-to-understand version of this always-confusing explanation that I've ever seen. I might add some text to it and throw it in the OP or something. Hence why I hate the whole thing - I would be willing to bet that a good majority of DSLR buyers this is intended to help, never owned a 35mm camera, or if they did it was either a P&S with a fixed focal length lens, or they had one zoom that came with their rebel, and don't have a "35mm focal length" system ingrained in their brains. And anyone who did, probably didn't need a "system" to make this all make sense in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 03:08
|
|