Going for my 1st DSLR...
Discussion
Hi all,
2 Q's really...
Finally going to get a DSLR, and am wondering about lenses.
Most seem to come with 18-55mm lenses. What will this give me?
I'm presuming this would be a middle of the road lens - I'm primarily interested in outdoor landscape shots plus shots of my kids. With this in mind, am I likely to want to buy more lenses / should I go for a different lens in the first place?
Also, I was looking at spending £400, but someone is selling an Olympus E-1 for £250 which I am seriously tempted by - would I be better off getting a newer camera with my 400/450 budget rather than this older camera which used to be a great piece of kit?
2 Q's really...
Finally going to get a DSLR, and am wondering about lenses.
Most seem to come with 18-55mm lenses. What will this give me?
I'm presuming this would be a middle of the road lens - I'm primarily interested in outdoor landscape shots plus shots of my kids. With this in mind, am I likely to want to buy more lenses / should I go for a different lens in the first place?
Also, I was looking at spending £400, but someone is selling an Olympus E-1 for £250 which I am seriously tempted by - would I be better off getting a newer camera with my 400/450 budget rather than this older camera which used to be a great piece of kit?
Get the kit lens & learn to understand what all the numbers mean in real world situations.
Focal length is only the start of the story.
17mm is wide, good for landscapes, 55mm is into short telephoto teritory, the start of ideal portrait focal length. Its not good for sports or wuildlife etc.
Other things to think about are the max apature values, kit lensesd are usualy 'slow', they dont let in much light. F2.8 lets in a lot more light than f5.6, which means shutter speeds can be faster.
Kit lenses usualy arnt all that sharp either. Lenses have 'sweet spots', kit lenses usualy are soft at or close to max apature and are also iffy at extreems of focal length. So best mid range and f8 or f9, those apatures are quite 'slow' though. Usualy a faster lens is sharper quicker too. e.g. my 50mm f1.8 prime is sharp f2.2 up.
Focal length is only the start of the story.
17mm is wide, good for landscapes, 55mm is into short telephoto teritory, the start of ideal portrait focal length. Its not good for sports or wuildlife etc.
Other things to think about are the max apature values, kit lensesd are usualy 'slow', they dont let in much light. F2.8 lets in a lot more light than f5.6, which means shutter speeds can be faster.
Kit lenses usualy arnt all that sharp either. Lenses have 'sweet spots', kit lenses usualy are soft at or close to max apature and are also iffy at extreems of focal length. So best mid range and f8 or f9, those apatures are quite 'slow' though. Usualy a faster lens is sharper quicker too. e.g. my 50mm f1.8 prime is sharp f2.2 up.
Some kit lenses can be good, but i'd guess its fair to say that in-general they aren't the best of lenses 
I'd just to echo what Mr Dickinson has said..
I'd also say that in general you wont find a cheaper alternative to the kit lenses. In the case of the canon 400d, there seems to be a difference of about £30 between the body-only price and the camera coming with the 18-55 lens. Although you will find some people 'taking-a-pop' the 18-55 kit lens on some sites, you will certainly struggle to find another new lens for £30
Using the kit lens as a starting point sounds like a good course of action
I'm afraid i've never used Olympus E-1 so can't comment from experience.
Is this the correct camera ? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/
Although i'd certainly agree there is more to a camera than its mega-pixel rating, that review is quoting '5.6 million total pixels (2738 x 2044)' for the E1.
For newer dslr's :
Canon 400D : 10.1 mp (3888 x 2592)
Canon 350D : 8.0 mp (3456 x 2304)
Nikon D40x : 10.0 mp (3872 x 2592)
That review also mentions a different 'four thirds' lens mount as well ? I'm not familiar with that system, perhaps someone else knows how this would effect the possible lens choice ?
That dpreview site ( http://www.dpreview.com/ ) is pretty comprehensive with its reviews. Well worth reading through before deciding on a camera
Hope this helps.
I'd just to echo what Mr Dickinson has said..
I'd also say that in general you wont find a cheaper alternative to the kit lenses. In the case of the canon 400d, there seems to be a difference of about £30 between the body-only price and the camera coming with the 18-55 lens. Although you will find some people 'taking-a-pop' the 18-55 kit lens on some sites, you will certainly struggle to find another new lens for £30
Using the kit lens as a starting point sounds like a good course of action
I'm afraid i've never used Olympus E-1 so can't comment from experience.
Is this the correct camera ? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/
Although i'd certainly agree there is more to a camera than its mega-pixel rating, that review is quoting '5.6 million total pixels (2738 x 2044)' for the E1.
For newer dslr's :
Canon 400D : 10.1 mp (3888 x 2592)
Canon 350D : 8.0 mp (3456 x 2304)
Nikon D40x : 10.0 mp (3872 x 2592)
That review also mentions a different 'four thirds' lens mount as well ? I'm not familiar with that system, perhaps someone else knows how this would effect the possible lens choice ?
That dpreview site ( http://www.dpreview.com/ ) is pretty comprehensive with its reviews. Well worth reading through before deciding on a camera
Hope this helps.
Edited by flat-planedCrank on Thursday 1st November 05:09
four thirds lens mount - basically half way between the std consumer DSLR sensor and the (much) smaller compact camera sensor. In effect it's a small sensor that's inherrently mlikely to be far more noisy for the same resolution (pixel size:sensor size giving a fair indication of signal:noise ratio), plus it mean everything can be made chearer - shorter lenses with smaller manufacturing tolerences etc.
Unless you really want something very compact yet you can still change lenses get at APS-C DSLR, like the canons or nikons. Four Thirds isn't well supported by the third party lens manufacturers and the killer for me is the extra depth of field the shorter focal length gives you for a given magnification. Getting small depth of field images (ie isolating people in crowds etc) is significantly harder at shorter focal lengths.
Buy a proper camera not a compact.
Unless you really want something very compact yet you can still change lenses get at APS-C DSLR, like the canons or nikons. Four Thirds isn't well supported by the third party lens manufacturers and the killer for me is the extra depth of field the shorter focal length gives you for a given magnification. Getting small depth of field images (ie isolating people in crowds etc) is significantly harder at shorter focal lengths.
Buy a proper camera not a compact.
Thanks people. Lots of comments (& offers!)
The E-1 I'm looking at doesn't have a lens, so don't need to worry about the pros/cons of a kit lens.
My current way of thinking is whether the following:
The E-1 Body @ £250
+ a 14-42 (£60)
http://www.parkcameras.com/ProductDetails/mcs/prod...
+ a 40-150 below
http://www.parkcameras.com/ProductDetails/mcs/prod...
Is better than a newer camera (say a Nikon D50 for arguments sake)?
This would be a serious set up for £460, which was pretty much my original budget for a new camera minus the zoom?!
p.s. I hardly think a 3 year old pro camera that was £1100 new can be called a compact and not proper, though I confess to not having an SLR for about 25 years so am not exactly up on these things at the moment?
The E-1 I'm looking at doesn't have a lens, so don't need to worry about the pros/cons of a kit lens.
My current way of thinking is whether the following:
The E-1 Body @ £250
+ a 14-42 (£60)
http://www.parkcameras.com/ProductDetails/mcs/prod...
+ a 40-150 below
http://www.parkcameras.com/ProductDetails/mcs/prod...
Is better than a newer camera (say a Nikon D50 for arguments sake)?
This would be a serious set up for £460, which was pretty much my original budget for a new camera minus the zoom?!
p.s. I hardly think a 3 year old pro camera that was £1100 new can be called a compact and not proper, though I confess to not having an SLR for about 25 years so am not exactly up on these things at the moment?
God the English in my last post was awful!
Anyhows get the camera you feel most comfortable with. If that's the E-1 go for it. Personally I think they are too comprimised and would rather have a full APS-C sensor, but if the priority is something small and you're not too worried about expanding the system in the future then go for it. I like to shoot with narrow depth of field, and you can't do that easily with 4/3rds.
For the money I'd seriously look at a new or used 350D.
Anyhows get the camera you feel most comfortable with. If that's the E-1 go for it. Personally I think they are too comprimised and would rather have a full APS-C sensor, but if the priority is something small and you're not too worried about expanding the system in the future then go for it. I like to shoot with narrow depth of field, and you can't do that easily with 4/3rds.
For the money I'd seriously look at a new or used 350D.
Fetchez la vache said:
Thanks people. Lots of comments (& offers!)
The E-1 I'm looking at doesn't have a lens, so don't need to worry about the pros/cons of a kit lens.
My current way of thinking is whether the following:
The E-1 Body @ £250
+ a 14-42 (£60)
http://www.parkcameras.com/ProductDetails/mcs/prod...
+ a 40-150 below
http://www.parkcameras.com/ProductDetails/mcs/prod...
Is better than a newer camera (say a Nikon D50 for arguments sake)?
This would be a serious set up for £460, which was pretty much my original budget for a new camera minus the zoom?!
p.s. I hardly think a 3 year old pro camera that was £1100 new can be called a compact and not proper, though I confess to not having an SLR for about 25 years so am not exactly up on these things at the moment?
If it were my money i'd be looking at a 2nd hand Nikon D80 / Canon 30D for about £400-£450. The E-1 I'm looking at doesn't have a lens, so don't need to worry about the pros/cons of a kit lens.
My current way of thinking is whether the following:
The E-1 Body @ £250
+ a 14-42 (£60)
http://www.parkcameras.com/ProductDetails/mcs/prod...
+ a 40-150 below
http://www.parkcameras.com/ProductDetails/mcs/prod...
Is better than a newer camera (say a Nikon D50 for arguments sake)?
This would be a serious set up for £460, which was pretty much my original budget for a new camera minus the zoom?!
p.s. I hardly think a 3 year old pro camera that was £1100 new can be called a compact and not proper, though I confess to not having an SLR for about 25 years so am not exactly up on these things at the moment?
Either way you would gain access to a huge range of possible lenses. Not only from nikon and canons own brands (which are very good), but also from 3rd party makers like Sigma, Tamron and Tonika.
So, for example, if in the future i decide i want an ultra-wide-angle lens i have a bunch of choices over price / performance from the different makers.
For an example of the range of lenses available check http://www.warehouseexpress.com/ , they tend to be decent on price.
Cheers.
Edited by flat-planedCrank on Thursday 1st November 20:20
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff