Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Thinking of picking up a DSLR.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thinking of picking up a DSLR. - Page 3

post #31 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermitt View Post
One thing that I've found while using the 50mm fixed lens is that you have to keep moving back farther aaway to get more of anything into the frame. I guess that is one of the biggest conviences of having the tele and zoom lenses on hand
50mm prime lense forces you to improve your awareness of framing and composition.

after kit lense ... 50mm f1.8 prime lense is a must IMO to be able to understand and best use your camera and improve your own picture taking skills
post #32 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermitt View Post
Edit: I guess the way that I understand this is that with dslrs, the apreture doesn't move until after you click the shutter button, the DOF preview actually closes the lens to the selected apreture setting for you to view the desired results before snapping the photo. So I was mistaken about it showing what would be the sensor's view.
ah....OK...you were misleading everyone Yeah, it sounds like your mirror isn't moving (if it were, you'd at least see the viewfinder "blink" as the mirror swings). DOF preview is common on most SLRs....works out really well on 50mm and telephoto lenses as it will let you guage how much of the area will be in focus (though your viewfinder might get really dark when going down to 16 or more). Most SLRs have a DOF button right on the body: it's one of my memorized functions that I don't have to look away from my viewfinder (I've also managed to memorize where the tiny little WB, ISO, and metering buttons are so I can change most through the viewfinder on my 5D).

These "live previews" are actually ways that you can get the lens view onto the LCD. So a select few dSLRs that actually have this feature will either swing the mirror up so that the image goes from the viewfinder to the sensor. Or they will have a transparent mirror that can both reflect light to the viewfinder and allow light to pass to the sensor. Since I'm used to film SLRs, I don't see the point of it myself...but eh

RE: Canons for wedding photography.....yeah, I just was at a wedding: all the pro photographers were using Canons: either the 5Ds or 1Dss. Think Canon is owning the wedding business because of full frame sensors. But the 5D or 1Ds can be overkill for someone just getting into photography As for lenses, I'm sure it would probably be debatable as to which brand makes the best optics (though I've got no doubts that my EF 135mm 2.0L is the closest thing to perfection for a portrait lens ). Both Canon and Nikon make some winners and some losers. When you start debating about the camera bodies, there are going to be some distinctions. But at the basic functionality, you'll find any dSLR satisfying. IMO, the main thing is figuring out which one is the most comfortable for you.
post #33 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermitt View Post
From what i've read on 4:3 systems, since the lens and the sensors were both designed hand and hand for digital and for the exact sensor size, that there is no cropping when the image comes through the lens like there is with 35mm lenses that are used on dslrs. And if i remember corrctly, the viewfinder on my e-300 is like only 95% or 98% of the actual image.

More info -> http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/dslr_7045.htm
and -> http://www.four-thirds.org/en/about/benefit.html
There is very much so a crop factor for the 4:3 system...2.0x crop - one of the highest crops around. Did you even read the first link you posted?

"The standard focal lens of the Four Thirds standard is around 25mm. So to compare for the 35mm format with a standard focal length of around 50mm, you have to use the factor 2 to have the angle of view compared (50mm = 100mm related to 35mm equivalent focal length)."

^^that means cropping.
post #34 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrvile View Post
^^that means cropping.
Also if you're finding yourself stepping back a lot....that's a good indication your 50mm is more of a telephoto On my 1x FF camera, I find I use my 50mm a lot indoors. I'll switch to 28mm for some landscapes that are impossible to keep stepping back for. But if the Olympus has a 2x crop, then that makes a 50mm macro the same as a EF 100mm macro on my camera. I only use the macro for closeups or some landscapes.
post #35 of 214
the cropping that i was referring to is in reguards to using non-digital lenses on a dlsr with a smaller sensor. The non digital glass's light or image does not strike the sensor with the same image size as it does on a 35mm body. The digital designed lenses get full edge to edge light and image to the sensor. If using a non digital lens on a digital body, a lot of the image is cropped out.

Edit: also from that first link (that I did read)...


Whoever has used lenses designed for 35mm film with digital camera bodies incorporating sensors smaller than film knows the potential problem: a loss of wide-angle capability. Four Thirds solves this phenomenon. As the lens is always fully optimised to suit the sensor, you don’t have to contend with expensive wide-angle lenses that do not attain their intended specification – the angle of view you expect is the angle of view you get.
post #36 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveip View Post
i just helped to shoot a wedding yesterday.

put it short ... i was the only one shooting with a Nikon. everyone else had canons. i bought a Nikon for the build quality and ergonomics. canons are cheaper than Nikon's and have better noise levels than the Nikon's. my advice ... buy a canon 350d(rebel xt) or a 400d (rebel xti) if you can afford the extra for the xti.

you'll be better served if you want to try out lenses and there will be more spare batteries around etc etc (and i bet canon don't have a problem with lense supply whereas nikon do ... although i believe nikon glass is better than canon glass)
Are you serious?
In the NL Cannon's are just a tad more expensive then the Nikon's, but the worst thing of Canon is the seduction of their L lenses.

Everybody with common sense knows the L lenses are great, and i don't disagree, they are a beautiful piece of glass, well made from top to bottom. However their prices are off the charts, nullifying their price/performance rating.

And off course NOBODY should have a Canon without L-glass. Even one should still the hunger.

--
Anyway, this is probably the case with EVERY Canon owner, their L-lenses are made of 100% pure evilness, and seduction. This will definitely add to the costs.




....and don't think "i will not buy L-glass", because YOU SHALL.
post #37 of 214
There is hardly any compairable differences to the actual sensor sizes between the canon/nikon and the Olympus. The differences are using non digital designed lenses on digital bodies as compaired to using lenses designed for digital bodies.

From another site ->
The controversy revolves around the size of the imaging chip. A typical Canon DSLR like the 20D has an imaging sensor with a height of 15mm. The new Olympus 4:3 DSLRs, like the E-1 and Evolt E-300 have a sensor height of 13.5mm

Now if you compare these sizes to traditional 35mm film which has a height of 24mm, or to a typical small non-DSLR digital camera which sports a miniscule sensor of only 5.32mm height, the Canon 20D and the new Olympus E-300 are practically identical to each other.
post #38 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Nobax View Post
Everybody with common sense knows the L lenses are great, and i don't disagree, they are a beautiful piece of glass, well made from top to bottom. However their prices are off the charts, nullifying their price/performance rating.

....and don't think "i will not buy L-glass", because YOU SHALL.
Well I resist automatically buying L....but yes, you can't deny the lure of L sometimes As for price/performance....I think it's variable. IMO, my 135 isn't bad at all: it goes for about $900 and is known for being the sharpest lens around. The difference between the $1400 50mm 1.2L and the $330 50mm 1.4 is mainly lens flare improvements. And probably the worst price/performance lens is the "world's fastest" that Canon had to discontinue because it's so expensive: the $3000 50mm 1.0L
post #39 of 214
Anyways, I'm not here to debate which is a better format. I simply chose to go with the new standard that has lenses designed for the sensors and also at the time, it was the only camera with the self cleaning sensor.
post #40 of 214
I suggest going to a camera store if you have one around you and feel the camera and ask the sales person to take you through the camera. Choose which ever feels best and seems easiest to use for you.
post #41 of 214
This has turned into a not-so-beginners thread on DSLR's
post #42 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermitt View Post
Anyways, I'm not here to debate which is a better format. I simply chose to go with the new standard that has lenses designed for the sensors and also at the time, it was the only camera with the self cleaning sensor.
Yes i remember the E-300 and E-330 having a "SHAKEY SHAKEY ring" around its sensor.




Does that explain you sig. ????

Vibration is good
post #43 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickknutson View Post
This has turned into a not-so-beginners thread on DSLR's
Ah well, a bit of understanding how things works before you actually have such an object never hurts, especially when it comes to photography.
post #44 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Nobax View Post



Does that explain you sig. ????

Vibration is good
Heh.. nah... I like that ad on the side there for the force feedback thingy
post #45 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermitt View Post
Now if you compare these sizes to traditional 35mm film which has a height of 24mm, or to a typical small non-DSLR digital camera which sports a miniscule sensor of only 5.32mm height, the Canon 20D and the new Olympus E-300 are practically identical to each other.
That's still not quite apples to apples comparison. Let's look at the full numbers:

The Olympus E-300 has a 17.3x13.0mm sensor at 3264x2448 resolution

The Canon 20D has a 22.5x15.0mm sensor at 3504x2336 resolution.

Now if we look at the surface area as opposed to resolution, we can get the sense of each camera's pixel density. The higher the pixel density, the less light there is for each pixel (and the less sensitive the camera will be). When doing the math, I get that the E-300 has a 1.46 higher pixel density then the 20D. Sure enough, it's ISO is less as well: 100 - 400 effective vs 100-1600 effective of the 20D.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having a sensor that's a different aspect then traditional 35mm film. You might be able to come up with some interesting compositions from the more squarish aspect of the Olympus. But you do get certain limitations from a smaller sensor size.

*edit*
Quote:
This has turned into a not-so-beginners thread on DSLR's
Who says my post is too advanced for beginners Anyway...it does give you the science of what the differences between aspect and sensor size really mean.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Thinking of picking up a DSLR.