Planning to get my first dSLR - Some help reviewing my setup plan please? =)

[Headshotzx]

If you can get a 30D, good for you. I prefer that too.

24mm on 1.6crop will equate to about 3-4m for a 1.7m man with some headroom. No way you can take group shots in an enclosed room.

 

[synapseman]

The difference between 17 and 24 mm may seem small, but it translates to a huge difference in real life. Photography isn't all about math, and it's difficult to express what you see through the viewfinder using mathematical formulae. There is a reason why people don't recommend a 24-70 on an APS-C camera simply because it wasn't meant for an APS-C camera. 3m is a LOT of distance in real-world terms, especially indoors. The 18-50 was designed such that it would give an "ideal" range that approximates the 24-70 in full-frame terms. I still maintain that the only reason why anyone would get a 24-70 is because of the possibility of getting a full-frame camera in the near future.

And remember, scores on review sites are basically an ambiguous collection of numbers by people who are giving a subjective opinion. The 24-70 is no doubt a fantastic lens, but you have to see it in the proper context.

Of course, I could very well be accused of being pedantic and someone else could come along and say, "Rubbish! Who says 24-70 is no good for APS-C sensors? I use it on my camera and I love it!"

Ultimately, it's your call.

 

[mrhobbit]

400D/30D

17-50/2.8 3rd party


55-200IS

35/2


why 35/2? because on an APSC camera it gives you nearly 50mm, a 50mm on the other hand will give roughly a 75mm FOV, which is neither here nor there imo.

thats what untiil now i am still abit blur why people keep saying the 50/1.8 is a must buy, for most users who havent gone to FF, isnt the range a tad bit restrictive?:dunno:


btw, are you usre you need all that range? most shooters i know tend to favour one single or 2 types of focal ranges for their styles. Make sure the 55-200 IS is useful for you before plonking cash down on it.:thumbsup:

 

[ombre]

The difference between 17 and 24 mm may seem small, but it translates to a huge difference in real life. Photography isn't all about math, and it's difficult to express what you see through the viewfinder using mathematical formulae. There is a reason why people don't recommend a 24-70 on an APS-C camera simply because it wasn't meant for an APS-C camera. 3m is a LOT of distance in real-world terms, especially indoors. The 18-50 was designed such that it would give an "ideal" range that approximates the 24-70 in full-frame terms. I still maintain that the only reason why anyone would get a 24-70 is because of the possibility of getting a full-frame camera in the near future.

And remember, scores on review sites are basically an ambiguous collection of numbers by people who are giving a subjective opinion. The 24-70 is no doubt a fantastic lens, but you have to see it in the proper context.

Of course, I could very well be accused of being pedantic and someone else could come along and say, "Rubbish! Who says 24-70 is no good for APS-C sensors? I use it on my camera and I love it!"

Ultimately, it's your call.

Aye thanks, I'll go with the 17-50 I think. After some consideration.

400D/30D

17-50/2.8 3rd party


55-200IS

35/2


why 35/2? because on an APSC camera it gives you nearly 50mm, a 50mm on the other hand will give roughly a 75mm FOV, which is neither here nor there imo.

thats what untiil now i am still abit blur why people keep saying the 50/1.8 is a must buy, for most users who havent gone to FF, isnt the range a tad bit restrictive?:dunno:


btw, are you usre you need all that range? most shooters i know tend to favour one single or 2 types of focal ranges for their styles. Make sure the 55-200 IS is useful for you before plonking cash down on it.:thumbsup:

50/1.8 is for good bokeh for portraits probably face and shoulder shots only? Maybe on little cats too? Or other stuff. Why 50/1.8 and not 35/2 for me is simply because... 35/2 costs 4 times as much.

I now own a FZ18 with a 1.7X teleconverter on it, total equivalent is 850mm (actually effectively only 800mm). Yes I use the Long end much more than the wide end.. probably a ratio of 8 long shots to 1 wide (usually landscape) shot. I think photography becomes more of a sport than art for me. I get thrilled when I can capture subjects at a distance... further the better. =X But now my tolerance for the IQ of my camera is wearing thin (or actually my taste improved) hence considering the switch. Anyway, I quite like birding a lot, I'm a little afraid 250mm won't be enough. But I'd like the IS and I seriously cannot afford anything more though I'd like a fast 400mm =X. Bringing a tripod to bird doesn't sound like something I want to do, lowers mobility too much.

Maybe I'd look into a 1.4 or 2X teleconverter next time? But 2 light stops makes the lens as good as worthless really (in the sporting sense). well maybe not in the day..

 

[ombre]

If you can get a 30D, good for you. I prefer that too.

24mm on 1.6crop will equate to about 3-4m for a 1.7m man with some headroom. No way you can take group shots in an enclosed room.

Hey can I ask you whats the big diff between 30D and 400D? Besides the obvious 10mp. I read that AF is faster on the xxD? By a lot? Didn't manage to find much info on the other differences. The other differences like faster continuous shooting, AF points etc, don't bother me much.

 

[Headshotzx]

Don't even think about properly going above 300mm without paying more than a grand.

AF is not faster on the 30D or 400D. They use the same AF modules.

 

[ricleo]

get the 30D if its within your budget for the spot metering and faster FPS, and better quality built.

 

[ricleo]

Since you had the 400D previously, could you comment on the sensor dust cleaning system? does it work well or is it just a marketing blow-up?

the sensor dust cleaning i the 400D IMO is more of a marketing blow-up...still had dust in it all the time....weirdly, the 5D which is suppose to be a dust magnet gave me less dust problems then the 400D.

if your budget can be stretched to include the 450d or 1000d, maybe can consider those. the dust cleaning system on the 450d seems much better then the 450d! haven't had to clean the sensor at all yet despite frequent lens changes. I shoot frequently at high F-stops (16-22) for landscape, and the dust just doesn't show

 

[synapseman]

Don't even think about properly going above 300mm without paying more than a grand.

AF is not faster on the 30D or 400D. They use the same AF modules.

Actually ah, I used to own a Tokina AT-X 400SD f/5.6. Of course not fast lens (aperture-wise), but at about $400+, was quite a sweet lens. :thumbsup:

 

[estel]

TS you seem to have done better homework than most of the people who ask questions here. Many buy 50mm just because it is cheap and then try it on situations it's not made for, then sell. You can see how many of them are on sale in CS.

Having said that, for portraits (especially bust) and close-up shots (like flowers, not really macro), 50mm 1.8 II *is* a good lens: given you buy it *knowing* its limitations. You may try CS B&S threads for some cheap offers. I have used it on my crop sensor camera and only sold it because its suitability for portraits made my buy 50 1.4

Full frame guys use 85mm for portraits: longer than 50mm on a crop sensor. However, there's no need to rush. Get whatever zoom you want and see if the range is OK at 50mm.

 

[ombre]

Actually ah, I used to own a Tokina AT-X 400SD f/5.6. Of course not fast lens (aperture-wise), but at about $400+, was quite a sweet lens. :thumbsup:

Hey actually thats not too bad. F5.6 is still bearable. but 400+ is expensive. Is there IS on that lens? If not then its not really useful for me either =X

 

[ombre]

Ugh. I think I'm back to my worst dilemma.

I'm going to throw this very "loose" question out. Actually no, maybe I should throw my thought process out.

If the sensor cleaning system doesn't work well... why 400D?
>350D? (8mp is fine for me, so is the crappy tiny LCD).
But 20D / 30D easily cost around the same price? (Honestly I can't tell the spec difference, can someone point it out?)

I keep going around and about thinking about the actual difference, their prices seem to fluctuate a lot too and sometimes they all cost the same. For instance some sell their 350D at 600 while others sell their 400D at 500.

At this rate I'm never going to get my research done!

 

[synapseman]

Hey actually thats not too bad. F5.6 is still bearable. but 400+ is expensive. Is there IS on that lens? If not then its not really useful for me either =X

Ah, no IS on that lens. (I use Sony Alpha, so stabilisation is built into the body). Frankly though, I didn't use this lens very often, so I sold it eventually.

 

[ombre]

Ah, no IS on that lens. (I use Sony Alpha, so stabilisation is built into the body). Frankly though, I didn't use this lens very often, so I sold it eventually.

I see, one of the good things about Sony Alpha I guess. Well If I had that lens, I'd either bird, or do candids from a long distance or a building. Which is why 400 dollars to do candids is a NO. =X

 

[Headshotzx]

I'd buy a 400mm for S$400 in a flash. The closest one is Canon's, and that doesn't have IS either, and costs S$1.5k- 1.7k.

 

[ombre]

I'd buy a 400mm for S$400 in a flash. The closest one is Canon's, and that doesn't have IS either, and costs S$1.5k- 1.7k.

I'd agree with the price. But 400mm being able to take a stable shot at that range is questionable for me. Don't know about you guys but yea. =X

 

[Headshotzx]

I'd agree with the price. But 400mm being able to take a stable shot at that range is questionable for me. Don't know about you guys but yea. =X

Why not? Shoot at ISO200 outdoors in the afternoons, use f/5.6 and you'd get 1/2000. As it gets darker, up the ISO and use a tripod. Simple.

 

[ombre]

Why not? Shoot at ISO200 outdoors in the afternoons, use f/5.6 and you'd get 1/2000. As it gets darker, up the ISO and use a tripod. Simple.

Are you sure ISO 200 can reach 1/2000? I think 1/200 more like it, realistically that is, if you're shooting something near shades, not under adverse sunlight.


Anyways I got a deal for a 20D, finally settled on a body. Now I'm having the same decision making problems all over again. Does every newbie face this or just me?

I don't know which lens to get first! Probably the 50mm F1.8 since its the cheapest.

Does anyone recommend buying kit lenses first before I jump straight for the F2.8?

 

[Headshotzx]

Are you sure ISO 200 can reach 1/2000? I think 1/200 more like it, realistically that is, if you're shooting something near shades, not under adverse sunlight.


Anyways I got a deal for a 20D, finally settled on a body. Now I'm having the same decision making problems all over again. Does every newbie face this or just me?

I don't know which lens to get first! Probably the 50mm F1.8 since its the cheapest.

Does anyone recommend buying kit lenses first before I jump straight for the F2.8?

Why can't ISO200 reach 1/2000? Ever tried shooting at noon?

 

[ombre]

Why can't ISO200 reach 1/2000? Ever tried shooting at noon?

Hm, when I read your post I just tried, I tried snapping a tree outside my window with F5.6, bright sun. ISO 200 and it was only 1/200. Unless prosumer and dSLR got big difference even with the same settings...