Help needed on choosing a camera

[Mr Snap]

Simpo Two said:

That said I use single point AF and check focus on the monitor using 100% crop.

That's what I do too, but I don't think I'd suggest it to an amateur using an old dslr, it's a bit of an acquired skill - esp if it's only got 5 focus points.

[rob0r]

After reading many threads like this I ended up with a 30d, 50mm 1.8, 55-250mm and slightly later a kit 18-55mm, all from mpb. Similar to your budget and will out perform me forever!

[Elderly]

Mr Snap said:

The only advantage of mirrorless cameras is that they're smaller and lighter for people who can't be arsed to carry a DSLR, they're an essentially amateur product.

I'm not sure that I would class the Sony a7R for example as an amateur product;
image quality wise it's superior to any DSLR except maybe for a handful of the high end full frame Canikons.

However I will admit to being almost as ultracrepidarian as you

[Mr Snap]

Elderly said:

I'm not sure that I would class the Sony a7R for example as an amateur product;
image quality wise it's superior to any DSLR except maybe for a handful of the high end full frame Canikons.

However I will admit to being almost as ultracrepidarian as you

Image quality isn't the be all and end all of photography, otherwise we'd still be using 10x8 film cameras. I've got a Sinar P2 kit in the garage which I've barely touched for nearly ten years because, despite the quality of image it can produce (how many giga bytes?), it can't do what I need it to do as efficiently or as cheaply as a five year old medium range dslr.

With a modern dslr, I can work to a relatively high standard in practically every genre of photography going. I can be Henri Cartier-Bresson today and Ansel Addams tomorrow with just one camera. It's quite astonishing how versatile they are really, considering that not so long ago the 35mm dslr's they developed from were thought of as somewhat limited and weren't used for a lot of pro photography. As it stands now, mirrorless cameras simply aren't as versatile as dslr's, no matter how high quality the images they can produce.

My opinion, of course...

[Elderly]

Mr Snap said:

With a modern dslr, I can work to a relatively high standard in practically every genre of photography going. I can be Henri Cartier-Bresson today and Ansel Addams tomorrow with just one camera.

For a moment there I thought that I had detected a touch of arrogance ......
...... until I realised you must be talking about a relation of uncle Fester and cousin Cackle

Mr Snap said:

As it stands now, mirrorless cameras simply aren't as versatile as dslr's, no matter how high quality the images they can produce.

A serious question - other than in focus tracking, where does a high end mirrorless camera such as the Sony a7 range (I don't own one) lack versatility as compared to a high end DSLR?

[Mr Snap]

Elderly said:

Mr Snap said:

With a modern dslr, I can work to a relatively high standard in practically every genre of photography going. I can be Henri Cartier-Bresson today and Ansel Addams tomorrow with just one camera.

For a moment there I thought that I had detected a touch of arrogance ......
...... until I realised you must be talking about a relation of uncle Fester and cousin Cackle

Mr Snap said:

As it stands now, mirrorless cameras simply aren't as versatile as dslr's, no matter how high quality the images they can produce.

A serious question - other than in focus tracking, where does a high end mirrorless camera such as the Sony a7 range (I don't own one) lack versatility as compared to a high end DSLR?

I'm more Gomez than Uncle Fester, I'll have you know!

Good question: It's hard to explain but take the Cartier-Bresson thing, for example. As I'm sure you know, HC-B's technique derived from the Leica rangefinder and, if you've ever used one, you'll understand how the design helps you to 'frame' rapidly unfolding action using the rangefinder. The way it's constructed allows you to see what's happening in front of you comfortably; you use your right eye to look through the viewer, to frame precisely but, at the same time, you use your other eye to gauge what's going on outside the frame. Using this two-eyed approach you can 'time' things as they go in and out of the frame and achieve the full HC-B effect. The two eyed method is also, incidentally, why the Mamiya 6/7's became popular with people like Martin Parr and Mark Power, it's effectively a higher image quality Leica.

Now, although it's slightly more difficult, you can still shoot this way with an optical type SLR/DSLR (esp if you use a prime lens). However, try the same thing with an electronic viewfinder like the S7 and it simply doesn't work quite as well, there seems to be a minuscule lag between the real world and what you see through the viewer and personally I find that it makes me feel seasick. This effect doesn't happen on the hybrid viewfinders on the rangefinder style digi's, like the Fuji x100. Whatever, I'd argue that I can do 'decisive moment' style photography pretty well with an optical DSLR but not an electronic one.

For more considered styles of photography, a la Ansel Adams, I can use a camera like the Sony a7 without difficulty. But take the a7 into the studio or, say, a fashion location shoot and things start to go wrong again. Maybe it's me but if you've got to spend a day focussing on the eye closest to the camera for eight hours solid, you don't want to be looking at an electronic screen. It's tiring enough with an optical viewer, throw in the slight flicker, the on screen 'exposure compensation' for poor light conditions and (minuscule) lag of an electronic viewfinder and you're talking migraine level headache after a couple of hours.

Honest opinion. Cameras like the a7 are very good for certain things, like landscape, but it's still no better than an optical DSLR with a similar pixel count. In a number of other situations, it can't quite do what an optical DSLR does, it's not a huge difference but big enough to count. That's not saying optic DSLR's are perfect. Niche cameras, like the Fuji rangefinders beat optic DSLR's for decisive moment photography and medium format digital beats a "35mm" optical DSLR in the studio. But the optical DSLR does a pretty good job in a wide range of situations and that's why cameras like the Nikon V1 are highly unlikely to supersede DSLR's, with or without optical viewfinders, in the near future. In the optical vs electronic viewfinder war, optical beats electronic currently, but I'm not taking any bets on the future.

[Elderly]

Mr Snap said:

.... the Leica rangefinder and, if you've ever used one, you'll understand how the design helps you to 'frame' rapidly unfolding action using the rangefinder.

Ah ..... so that's what you mean by 'mirrorless'.

I was brought up on those and I still have this; similar to a Leica but more upmarket,
and by using the 'sports finder' shown, you can truly see what is coming into frame.

[Mr Snap]

Elderly said:

Ah ..... so that's what you mean by 'mirrorless'.

I was brought up on those and I still have this; similar to a Leica but more upmarket,
and by using the 'sports finder' shown, you can truly see what is coming into frame.

Great cameras! With a sports finder and by zoning your depth of field, quicker to use on the fly than any modern autofocus.

[Mr Will]

Mr Snap said:

Completely Off Topic.

Agreed.

Mr Snap said:

If your eyesight is ok you can critical focus a DSLR more than adequately with your naked eye.

False - Modern DSLR focussing screens are optimised for brightness when using slower aperture zooms. They are insufficient for accurate focus at macro distances or when using fast lenses. If you'd ever used an older camera you'd know the difference.

Mr Snap said:

Live-view is vga quality and even when magnified is inferior to what the the human eye should see.

Irrelevant and false. Once you zoom in you can see 1:1 magnification - i.e. you can see every pixel that will be in the final shot.

Mr Snap said:

If the demand for focus is that critical, you shouldn't be relying on your eyes or live-view; you shoot first and check the image after, either by enlarging it on the camera (which is better quality reproduction than live view) or you shoot tethered with Lightroom, or similar, and check the image out on a laptop/monitor afterwards. Shooting products tethered has so many other advantages over using live-view that, if you have a laptop and Lightroom, live-view doesn't even enter the equation.

Shooting tethered? That's just another form of live view... and why do you choose to shoot that way?

Mr Snap said:

Don't believe all of what the camera magazines say. Mirrorless cameras are the latest thing invented by the camera manufacturers to persuade easily persuaded people to spend money. To do this they introduce ever more redundant automation and gizmos, few of these features are worth spit.

I don't read camera magazines and don't like gizmos. That's got nothing to do with the topic at hand. Different tools have different strengths and weaknesses. Understanding them is important.

Mr Snap said:

Take my word for it, nobody in the trade uses a mirrorless camera to shoot products (or much else for that matter). Indeed, not even DSLR's are the best tool for that job. If you want to shoot product seriously, you need a mf digital - these also tend to have fewer automated features. The only advantage of mirrorless cameras is that they're smaller and lighter for people who can't be arsed to carry a DSLR, they're an essentially amateur product.

Considering the quality of your word so far, I think I'll pass.

FWIW I do agree with you regarding current mirrorless cameras. The majority of their advantages are irrelevant to professional users but surely, in this case we are not making recommendations for a professional user?

Mirrorless cameras were not the question though, it was one of focussing accuracy. In this regard you have four choices - Phase Detection AF, Contrast Detection AF, Optical MF and Live-View MF (via EVF, Rear Screen or Tethered Screen). A modern DSLR can do all four, but the most accurate are Contrast Detection AF and Live-View MF, not the traditional DSLR autofocus (Phase Detect) or optical viewfinder. They have other big advantages, but they do not come in to play for static product photography.

[Mr Will]

Mr Snap said:

...With a sports finder and by zoning your depth of field, quicker to use on the fly than any modern autofocus.

You do know you can do the same trick with a DSLR, don't you?

You could even do it very well with this:

[JontyR]

Would this do the job ok?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-1100D-Digital-Camera...

Seems to be a good bargain price!

[Mr Will]

JontyR said:

Would this do the job ok?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-1100D-Digital-Camera...

Seems to be a good bargain price!

Would do the job fine and is indeed a bit of a bargain - they are selling off the old stock because the almost identical 1200D has just launched.

Would you consider second-hand options, or are you keen for new?

[LuS1fer]

JontyR said:

Would this do the job ok?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-1100D-Digital-Camera...

Seems to be a good bargain price!

This seems to be cited as a rival and gets better reviews for similar money:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00403MA4M/ref=asc_df_B...

[conkerman]

I'd suggest going for a Used D90. You then have a camera that can use a Huge range of lenses due to the built in AF motor.

I have had mine since they came out and have no desire to replace for what I use it for.

[Mr Snap]

Mr Will said:

You do know you can do the same trick with a DSLR, don't you?

You could even do it very well with this:

That viewfinder doesn't correct for parallax and, depending on the position of your eye, can be wildly inaccurate in terms of framing. That's £100 for a bit of kit that isn't as accurate as the wire framed sports finder you can see with the 50 year old Robot above. You might as well make one from an old washing up liquid bottle and sticky backed plastic.

For accurate 'decisive moment' photography, parallax matters. That's why it was included in M Leicas, Mamiya Presses and Mamiya 6/7's and practically every other serious rangefinder camera since the Nikon SP.

It's a shame because Olympus have solved the 'sloppy' focus ring problem found on most autofocus cameras when they're switched to manual, but that viewfinder is an expensive chocolate teapot.

[Mr Will]

Mr Snap said:

That viewfinder doesn't correct for parallax and, depending on the position of your eye, can be wildly inaccurate in terms of framing. That's £100 for a bit of kit that isn't as accurate as the wire framed sports finder you can see with the 50 year old Robot above. You might as well make one from an old washing up liquid bottle and sticky backed plastic.

Go on Mr Cartier-Bresson, educate me: How does that wire contraption on top of the Robot correct for parallax?

[Mr Snap]

Mr Will said:

Go on Mr Cartier-Bresson, educate me: How does that wire contraption on top of the Robot correct for parallax?

In the picture, you're looking at the front end of the viewer, which makes it a bit awkward to explain...

The viewer fixes into the (not so) hot shoe. You put your eye to the small aperture in the rear frame and look through that to to check the framing against the larger front frame. Essentially the rear aperture keeps your eye fixed in the right place making the front frame accurate. For parallax correction, you have to move the slider on the rear part up or down to match the distance at which the rangefinder is set. You can see the slider on the rear frame in the picture but the distance scale is on the far side, so you can't see that.

It's actually quite an accurate system but it's a fiddle to use and looks a bit naff (hence, I believe, the nice looking but fairly pointless Olympus viewer**). That's why the Leica M and other rangefinders with parallax correction came to the fore in the short period before SLR's took over the world, they simply took thinking about parallax out of the equation.

The Leica et al parallax correction systems are really complex. It's not just up down parallax (like the Robot), they also compensates for the viewfinder being offset sideways and upwards from the centre of the shooting lens. If you look through a Leica and turn the focus from infinity to close up, whilst holding the camera still, you can see the bright finder lines scanning upwards and sideways (it could be down and sideways, it's a long time since I had one).

• If I had to shoot decisive moment using an Olympus Pen, I'd prefer to use the electronic viewfinder.

[Mr Will]

Mr Snap said:

The viewer fixes into the (not so) hot shoe. You put your eye to the small aperture in the rear frame and look through that to to check the framing against the larger front frame. Essentially the rear aperture keeps your eye fixed in the right place making the front frame accurate. For parallax correction, you have to move the slider on the rear part up or down to match the distance at which the rangefinder is set. You can see the slider on the rear frame in the picture but the distance scale is on the far side, so you can't see that.

Fair enough, hadn't spotted that the rear "element" moved. Was foolishly looking for a diagonal movement which of course isn't needed when it's directly above the lens!

Mr Snap said:

It's actually quite an accurate system but it's a fiddle to use and looks a bit naff (hence, I believe, the nice looking but fairly pointless Olympus viewer**). That's why the Leica M and other rangefinders with parallax correction came to the fore in the short period before SLR's took over the world, they simply took thinking about parallax out of the equation.

Agreed, I can't imagine that the manual parallax correction feature got much use, especially in the context of fast action and "decisive moments"! I think you'd almost be better off with the extra set of parallax correction marks as found on cheap viewfinder cameras. 35mm framing is always approximate at best, so except at very close distances you'd be able to sort it at the enlargement stage (aka "Fix it in post!").

Mr Snap said:

The Leica et al parallax correction systems are really complex. It's not just up down parallax (like the Robot), they also compensates for the viewfinder being offset sideways and upwards from the centre of the shooting lens. If you look through a Leica and turn the focus from infinity to close up, whilst holding the camera still, you can see the bright finder lines scanning upwards and sideways (it could be down and sideways, it's a long time since I had one).

Down and right, toward the lens. All done by the nice simple means of attaching the mask/mirror that sits behind the frame-line illumination window to the rangefinder mechanism.

Edited by Mr Will on Monday 19th May 17:51

[Simpo Two]

I would imagine that Mr C-B simply did it by instinct rather than twiddling knobs, or just framed a bit wider and sorted it out during printing.

[Mr Snap]

Simpo Two said:

I would imagine that Mr C-B simply did it by instinct rather than twiddling knobs, or just framed a bit wider and sorted it out during printing.

Yes, partly instinct. Lots of decisive moment type people do shoot on the fly without even looking at the viewfinder. With a few years experience, you know where the frame is - again too high a skill for beginners. beginners. As I understood it HCB was a purist and one of the first people to include the rebate in the print in order to 'prove' that he'd composed and shot the full frame.

He didn't print his own stuff, though, I believe that was normally done by Picto in Paris.