Discussion
Mattt said:
Podmantech I think it was, there's a few on there.
That's who I used. I got the 22mm and ef adaptor combo for £130. Paid £199 for the camera & 18-55 from Argos so £329 for camera, flash, 2 lenses and adaptor. Now that's VFM!Hoping to borrow the new 150-600 later and see how that works on the M
Mattt said:
Disastrous said:
That's a superb buy! Which seller, if you don't mind sharing (and he had more than one!)?
Podmantech I think it was, there's a few on there.
Cheers - great price.
I've been playing with it for the last couple of days now and really really like it. Sure it has some weaknesses, and I'm glad I have the DSLR as well but as a companion to it, it's brilliant. Most of the criticism I've read online is pretty unjustified and there's a way round almost everything if you actually read how it works.
One thing I've read, which may be if interest if you're finding the battery life annoying, is to turn off 'continuous AF'. This chews battery life and really adds nothing that I can see and I've noticed that even if you out the lens cap on and walk with the camera on, the continuous AF will hunt away the whole time.
rix said:
As a newbie to this world, apart from the size, what would the fixed 22mm lens do for me over the kit lens? Is the macro better etc or 'just' better optics etc? Do I 'need' one?!
There are three main advantages to fixed (aka "prime") lenses:Firstly; they typically have a much wider aperture than a zoom (the "f" number). The smaller this number is the more light the lens is able to let in which means you can shoot in darker conditions without having to use the flash, makes it easier to freeze motion and helps to keep the ISO (noise) levels low. It also allows you to blur the background to a greater extent (shallow depth of field). The 22mm in question lets in four times more light than the kit lens at the same length, which makes quite a significant difference.
Secondly; the optics inside them can be optimised far more precisely rather than having to be a compromise that covers all zoom lengths. It's very hard to make a lens that works well at both wide angle and telephoto lengths without lots and lots of expensive glass inside. This means that even a cheap prime can match or beat the image quality of the most expensive pro- zooms.
Finally; they can be made a lot smaller and lighter than a zoom. This is a big advantage for something like the EOS-M where with the 22mm it will just about go in a pocket, whereas with the zoom on it will require a bag.
It's well worth it at full price but at £75 it's a no-brainer.
marctwo said:
I think prime lenses are better for beginners. There are enough settings to worry about when learning photography as it is, without having to think about focal length. If you know what you are doing then a zoom lens gives you more options, otherwise it's just likely to be misused.
How does one "think of a focal lenth" and "misuses zoom"? 
rottie102 said:
marctwo said:
I think prime lenses are better for beginners. There are enough settings to worry about when learning photography as it is, without having to think about focal length. If you know what you are doing then a zoom lens gives you more options, otherwise it's just likely to be misused.
How does one "think of a focal lenth" and "misuses zoom"? Hard to explain but if you took a shot at three different levels of zoom, so the subject was the same size in the frame in each shot (obviously by physically moving) the three shots look very different.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/je0701-1.html
I assume that's what marctwo means?
rottie102 said:
marctwo said:
I think prime lenses are better for beginners. There are enough settings to worry about when learning photography as it is, without having to think about focal length. If you know what you are doing then a zoom lens gives you more options, otherwise it's just likely to be misused.
How does one "think of a focal lenth" and "misuses zoom"? 
Nope. You still didn't sell those words to me.
I know very well how focal length affects the photo but I still don't see it as a "zoom misuse". They see what the photo will look like. It's not like shooting everything at one length is "the right way".
If somebody even knows about the distortion caused by focal length, I'm sure they are perfectly capable of applying all the other settings correctly. Buying, carrying and changing prime lenses while taking photos is much more of a problem and something impossible to expect from somebody who doesn't fully know what they are doing than using a zoom lens.
(and that's from somebody who shoots pretty much everything with a fisheye and a prime!)
Anyway... Back on topic.
So is the Currys promotion over?
How good is IQ comparing to Sony Rx100 III?
I know very well how focal length affects the photo but I still don't see it as a "zoom misuse". They see what the photo will look like. It's not like shooting everything at one length is "the right way".
If somebody even knows about the distortion caused by focal length, I'm sure they are perfectly capable of applying all the other settings correctly. Buying, carrying and changing prime lenses while taking photos is much more of a problem and something impossible to expect from somebody who doesn't fully know what they are doing than using a zoom lens.
(and that's from somebody who shoots pretty much everything with a fisheye and a prime!
) Anyway... Back on topic.
So is the Currys promotion over?
How good is IQ comparing to Sony Rx100 III?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff