400D as a First DSLR?

[DLord]

Hi DLord,

Thanks for your input.

I did a quick search and read some articles on the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Not an easy read for a beginner like me. The f/1.8 is certainly great for low light photography. I noticed I forgot to mention that I may from time to time need closeup shots of the exhibits. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 sounded like an excellent choice if they allow me to stand just in front of the exhibits. As soon as its about 5ft away, would the budget Tamron zoom at 50mm still allow a closeup shot under low light condition with ony f/2.8?

Hope to hear from you again.

At about $120 new (or just below $100 used), you may wish to buy the 50mm f/1.8 mkII and see if it meets your needs. The Tamron at 50mm will not be any different from the Canon 50mm in terms of how large your subject appears in your picture. The f/1.8 will allow you to take the shot at a slightly higher shutter speed than the f/2.8 though - thus more "suitable" for your low light photography.

But then again, the f/2.8 *might* be sufficient for you low-light needs. The f/1.8 will give you slightly more than twice the amount of light at full open apertures.

 

[thingie]

So far this is what I found out as well. The f/3.5 does not sound too good for low light conditions, I think.

f3.5 is on the wide end at 18mm, at 200mm it'll be f6.3 wide open.

6.3 at 200mm for low-light? not really an option.

 

[soulmad]

as for low light situations, why not consider 30D which has excellent noise control at high ISO and now as affordable as 400D

 

[slaam]

Hi everyone,
Went round window shopping for my first DSLR and was recommended by 3 different shops to consider the Canon 400D. My interests mostly in taking pictures inside exhibition hall or museum under conditions whereby:
1) the light condition is usually fairly dim and/or not evenly spread over the exhibits;
2) one would normally be able to stand about 5ft away from the actual exhibits;
3) some exhibits also have a glass house protecting them;
4) tripods and flash are typically not allowed;

Added: 5) require closeup shots from 3 to 5ft away.

I am now considering the 400D body and potentially the VR 18-200mm Sigma lens.

Appreciate any advise you could offer. Thank you in advance.

Cheers
Milo

haha you really should ask this in consumer corner for a more unbiased view.
I love my canon. and it does low light af pretty well.
but u sound like u nid VR to work extensively.
why not consider a body with IS in the body?
but I must say they are less supported in terms of lens.

have you shot alot with PnS with VR?
a DSLR might get u attention from guards who are overzealous. some museums dun allow photography at all.
with a small PnS u might be able to get away with some shots.

u might wanna consider the canon powershot with IS if you haven't already.
heh i might be barking up the wrong tree though if u have already been there done that.. plus the excellent zoom will allow u the closeup that you wan..

this is my honest two cents worth

 

[Milopok]

Actually it depends a lot on how close-up you want the object to be. By the way if you're tight on cash, suggest you wait till 2008 to get your camera. When the 5D Mk II or rumoured 450D is out, prices of 20Ds and 400Ds will drop. You might be able to get a good deal for a second hand camera as people upgrade their 20/400Ds.

I recommended the 50 mm f/1.8 because of its wide aperture. I do not own this lens, but am planning to buy it. It's a very inexpensive lens (one of Canon's cheapest, actually) at around $120 and less than 100 for second-hand.

If you want a close-up of an object from 6 feet (works out to be about just less than 2m), then you might need a longer focal length. Maybe the 85 mm f/1.8 USM. That one is a more pricey lens, but again silent and better AF with the ring-USM.

Thanks again for highlighting something that was in my head the whole time but just didn't come out right!

I agree with you that it does depend on how "close up" I want the subject/object to be. Let me try to say something here in layman's terms. This has some dependencies on the size of the exhibits as well. They typically range from 3ft to 6ft in length/width.

- For an object 3ft or less overall in size, I would normally get to stand very close to it. Here I should think the 50mm f/1.8 would work out brillantly.

- For an object 6ft overall in size/maybe 4ft in width, they normally would have a barricade, hence I would end up standing some 5-6ft away from the object. Here I would need the zoom whereby I could view at least (2ft by 2ft) details on the surface of the object in an A3 size picture.

I am very curious how you worked out that 2m would require 85mm. Is there a chart or table or formula of some sort?

 

[Milopok]

f3.5 is on the wide end at 18mm, at 200mm it'll be f6.3 wide open.

6.3 at 200mm for low-light? not really an option.

Roger that!

 

[Milopok]

At about $120 new (or just below $100 used), you may wish to buy the 50mm f/1.8 mkII and see if it meets your needs. The Tamron at 50mm will not be any different from the Canon 50mm in terms of how large your subject appears in your picture. The f/1.8 will allow you to take the shot at a slightly higher shutter speed than the f/2.8 though - thus more "suitable" for your low light photography.

But then again, the f/2.8 *might* be sufficient for you low-light needs. The f/1.8 will give you slightly more than twice the amount of light at full open apertures.

Some of the larger exhibits (6ft by 4ft) normally do not have proper lighting from the undersize. The light from the ceiling usually get blocked from the object itself. You can see what I wrote in the last post on some of the other conditions. I will take note of the f/1.8 mkII you mentioned. Thanks.

 

[Milopok]

haha you really should ask this in consumer corner for a more unbiased view.
I love my canon. and it does low light af pretty well.
but u sound like u nid VR to work extensively.
why not consider a body with IS in the body?
but I must say they are less supported in terms of lens.

have you shot alot with PnS with VR?
a DSLR might get u attention from guards who are overzealous. some museums dun allow photography at all.
with a small PnS u might be able to get away with some shots.

u might wanna consider the canon powershot with IS if you haven't already.
heh i might be barking up the wrong tree though if u have already been there done that.. plus the excellent zoom will allow u the closeup that you wan..

this is my honest two cents worth

Thanks for your input.

I found the ConsumerCorner more relevant for prices and where to buy sorta thing. What I really want to find out here is 'which lens' for the 'conditions' which I normally use the SLR.

Yes I do need the VR or OS. Whats a IS in a body?

I have shot a lot with PnS and under low light conditions, I normally get horrible NOISE and GRAINS. Not sure if the G7 or G9 would be able to handle those conditions. I would only bring along the camera when photography is allowed at the exhibitions/museums.

Cheers

 

[unseenshadows]

I am very curious how you worked out that 2m would require 85mm. Is there a chart or table or formula of some sort?

85 mm on a 1.6x crop like the 400D or 40D would give a 136 mm AOV on an FF. From my past experience shooting at the range of 80-100 mm on the 400D, you should be able to capture a decent amount of detail (provided the lighting is right also).

Why not get a 400D and the 50mm f/1.8, do some shooting and then decide on what equipment exactly you're lacking? Since you're already sure that a 400D + 50mm f/1.8 would work brilliantly.

 

[unseenshadows]

Yes I do need the VR or OS. Whats a IS in a body?

VR - Vibration Reduction
OS - Optical Stabilizer
IS - Image Stabilizer

Basically all three mean the same thing. VR is a term used by Nikon, IS is used by Canon and OS is used by Sigma (i think).

Seeing as this is a Canon thread i'll just use the term IS.

IS is extremely useful when shooting handheld at focal lengths above 80 mm (just a rough gauge), as the minimum shutter speed recommended is the reciprocal of the focal length you are shooting at to prevent camera shake. So if I shoot at 100 mm, my shutter speed should at least be 1/100s. With IS enabled, your shutter speed can be brought down by up to 2 to 3 stops (depending on which version of IS the lens is incorporated with), allowing for better exposure as the camera adjusts the aperture accordingly (assuming you're shooting in TV mode).

 

[Milopok]

85 mm on a 1.6x crop like the 400D or 40D would give a 136 mm AOV on an FF. From my past experience shooting at the range of 80-100 mm on the 400D, you should be able to capture a decent amount of detail (provided the lighting is right also).

Why not get a 400D and the 50mm f/1.8, do some shooting and then decide on what equipment exactly you're lacking? Since you're already sure that a 400D + 50mm f/1.8 would work brilliantly.

Thanks for your quick reply.

The bulk of my photography once I am in these overseas exhibition hall revolve around the larger exhibitis. Hence I am doing my homework now.

From the advise you have given me so far, I think the other lens I should seriously consider is the 85 mm f/1.8 USM. Is this the Tamron/Sigma fixed lens?

 

[miniUltraman]

Thanks for your quick reply.

The bulk of my photography once I am in these overseas exhibition hall revolve around the larger exhibitis. Hence I am doing my homework now.

From the advise you have given me so far, I think the other lens I should seriously consider is the 85 mm f/1.8 USM. Is this the Tamron/Sigma fixed lens?

USM has to be canon :bsmilie:

 

[Milopok]

Thank you miniUltraman.

Budgeted about S$1000 for lens. Hopefully I get at least two for that.

 

[miniUltraman]

Thank you miniUltraman.

Budgeted about S$1000 for lens. Hopefully I get at least two for that.

which 2 you are getting?

 

[Milopok]

which 2 you are getting?

Still blur lah!:embrass:

 

[cantaresg]

Just a thought. If you use a large aperture, the depth of field may not be sufficient for a nice shot? Will a lens like 17-55 f2.8 IS work better here? But it will almost certainly burst the 1k budget.

 

[thingie]

if you have budgetted 1k for a lens, why not get a tamron 17-50 f2.8 (price ard 600+)? in dim lighting, just raise iso to 800-1600 and shoot wide open. its a decent lens.

otherwise, a 50mm f1.8 (price: 130) and a 85mm f1.8 (price: 600+) might be another option.

my personal opinion is to get a lens with a wider range, and then a prime.

 

[unseenshadows]

Hmm yeah I think on a 1k budget for your lens you will be most comfortable with an EF 50 mm f/1.8 and an EF 85 mm f/1.8 USM, and don't forget some important accessories such as battery grip (useful for portrait shots) and circular polarizer (to shoot through glass). All that would fit nicely just under your 1k budget.

 

[Milopok]

Hmm yeah I think on a 1k budget for your lens you will be most comfortable with an EF 50 mm f/1.8 and an EF 85 mm f/1.8 USM, and don't forget some important accessories such as battery grip (useful for portrait shots) and circular polarizer (to shoot through glass). All that would fit nicely just under your 1k budget.

Since these two are prime or fixed focal length lenses, I read that we normally end up having to move back & fore to get a sharp clear shot. Is this true? Whatever happen to the autofocus? This must be such a stupid question.:bsmilie:

 

[Milopok]

if you have budgetted 1k for a lens, why not get a tamron 17-50 f2.8 (price ard 600+)? in dim lighting, just raise iso to 800-1600 and shoot wide open. its a decent lens.

otherwise, a 50mm f1.8 (price: 130) and a 85mm f1.8 (price: 600+) might be another option.

my personal opinion is to get a lens with a wider range, and then a prime.

If I am reading this right, it essentially means, I should have a zoom lens (within a certain range) and a few prime lenses (fixed range). I think!