first D-SLR
Posted by: Phil Sparks on 12 April 2006
Got a few OM bodies (4, 4ti, couple of 1s) and a bag full of olympus primes that I still love for their quality, intuitiveness (sp??), small size etc. however I've found myself using the wife's small digi compact more often recently. I love the way you can try things out and see the result immediately, also it's great for grabbing lots of snaps of the kids then just seeing which ones works. However the shutter delay is infuriating, the lack of control bugs me and the quality is really pretty average.
Therefore I've been thinking of getting an entry level digi SLR. This won't really be a replacement for the OM stuff but will be good for kids parties, family days out etc, where I'd like to get better results than the P&S but would like the ability to shoot 100 shots and just keep the best 4 or 5 rather than burn £30 on 3 rolls of film and processing.
Handled the Eos 350 D and thought it felt cheap. The D50 and Oly E500 felt better. The E500 looks a good deal at £600 for a kit with 2 lenses but I get the sense that buying into the 4/3 system could be limiting in the future. The D50 gets great reviews and with the 18-70 lens is only £500 or so. One recommendation I had was to go for the 17-200VR lens which will cover all eventualities and is great optically too - can be had for c.£800 with the D50. I've never really used long lenses much (my Oly 200m has bee used a handful of times whereas the 21mm and 24mm get a much more regular outing) - however maybe I don't use often simply because I can't be bothered to carry round - and if it was always on the camera it would get used more often.
I'm not too price sensitive but I think spending more on the lens and less on the body is the right way to go at the moment.
Any thoughts?
Phil
Posted on: 22 June 2006 by Steve G
Here's another picture from this morning - taken using my Sigma 10-20mm:
Posted on: 22 June 2006 by garyi
Be jesus and people worry about mobile phones!
My reason for falling for nikon (Or canon if thats your bag) is because of the vast choice and array of lenses to suit all budgets and hobbies. Oly do not have that amount of range.
That is the only reason for me. Oh I did look at their offering in the £500-£600 SLR range, forget the naim now E300? Anyhow, it felt like rubbish sadly. My wife pointed that out bless her, the nikon was clearly better built.
Posted on: 22 June 2006 by DIL
Garyi,
Doubt it was the E300, its built like the proverbial brick sh*t house. The E500 uses more plastic and is said to feel slightly lower quality.
As far as the range of lenses available with Olympus, yes, the number of digital zuiko lenses available is limited, but they do cover all eventualities (sometimes at a price) except short fast primes. You can also use legacy lenses with an adaptor.
As I understand it, older 'for film' lenses do not resolve as well as the newer 'designed for digital' ones; the same being true of any make. Having a wide array of lenses is great, IF you actually buy and use them. I suspect that many/most dSLR users use the kit lenses ...
... and how many people actually go as far as getting the absolute max from their images by post processing raw files rather than relying on the in-camera =>.jpg ?
... or, dare I say it, actually take the time and effort to compose the picture being taken rather than just snapping away. As I said earlier, it is the photographer that makes the image. I know of at least one professional photographer who did a whole series of images with an old fold out bellows camera (No Idea what it was) which are simply superb. Maybe not technically, but as evocative images they certainly hit the mark.
/dl
Posted on: 22 June 2006 by garyi
Hey listen I am not having a go at Oly. I owned a D10 for 4 years before moving to Nikon and felt no need to change in that time.
However I have learnt a lot more about photography with the Nikon because I have been able to purchase old manual lenses for pence and have eventually settled on a couple of quality lenses.
You are of course right that its the person behind the lens etc etc, but that was not the point of this thread.
Basically since January I have been able to go through around 20 lenses at very little cost in my learning process to land up with some great products which are pin sharp on a digital body. The good news i no doubt you have too, and canon users its all in our bag.
I think perhaps it was an E500, either way it felt like a toy.
Posted on: 22 June 2006 by DIL
Garyi, respect to you for actually going out and trying different lenses. My point was that many people use 'it' (range of lenses etc.) as a means of justifying their choice of camera without ever actually making use of this possibility. And yes, there are some excellent 'old' lenses out there.
Maybe time to bump the 'post your pictures' thread (Which I think we've had.) or start a new one.
/dl
Posted on: 22 June 2006 by arf005
quote:
Originally posted by count.d:
Ali,
Don't buy the Cokin, they're for the internet forum morons who pretend to appreciate lens quality by talking about bokeh. Only buy lee 100mm filters.
Regards Count.d, who even after a 20 mins tele conversation with Sinar in Switzerland, couldn't convince them that all my expensive Sinar filters were trash.
Thanks for the advice count.d (as always) but can you elaborate for me please.....something against the French...?? or just build quality/size....???
I'll look into Lee for sure though.
Having never used a filter system....apart from my Oakley's - seen here......
To turn this shot of the Forth Bridge (taken from the Superfast Ferry, Zeebrugge back to Rosyth)....
Into this.......
....and this....
....kind of warm up filter you could say......
We have hols coming up - Brugge, and Wales, later in August/September and I'd like to have some ND grads for the trips....although I'd like to have played with them first and gotten some sort of feel for them.....
Any advice....???
Cheers,
Ali
Posted on: 22 June 2006 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by David Legge:
As I understand it, older 'for film' lenses do not resolve as well as the newer 'designed for digital' ones; the same being true of any make.
My experience doesn't bear that out as the lenses I have that were superb with my 35mm film system are still superb with my DSLR, including massively outperforming the kit lens.
quote:
Having a wide array of lenses is great, IF you actually buy and use them. I suspect that many/most dSLR users use the kit lenses ...
If all you're going to use is the kit lens then it doesn't really matter which system you buy into. My DSLR came with an 18-55 zoom but it doesn't get used - the only reason I haven't sold it is because it's not worth anything.
quote:
... and how many people actually go as far as getting the absolute max from their images by post processing raw files rather than relying on the in-camera =>.jpg ?
Me for one.
Posted on: 22 June 2006 by Steve G
One thing I like a lot about using a DSLR is that it's cheap and easy to experiment with different styles. This morning I had a go with IR (using a Cokin P IR filter):
Getting the exposure right was a lot easier that it was when I tried IR with film.
Posted on: 23 June 2006 by count.d
Ali,
If you decide to use resin instead of glass filters, they have to be good or you'll get a few problems. Most resin filters that I've tested have a faint opaque "milkiness" that shows up by shining a light into the filter. This destroys your contrast.
Most ND or polarising filters are not pure neutral.
Finally and most importantly, the resin used with most filters ruins your lens resolution.
I noticed all these faults on my Sinar collection, which all came in beautiful wooden boxes and cost me a fortune. Cokin are worse. For the past 9 years I've used nothing but Lee.
The Lee ones are superb and don't have any faults. Lee also offer the grads in different graduations (hard/soft) for use on wide angle or tele lens. Their holder system is also great.
Posted on: 23 June 2006 by Derek Wright
Ali - have you tried using dfferent effects inPhotoshop or other editor to get the colour/atmosphere effect rather than using filters on the front of the lens.
By not using colour filters you will still have a technically "good" image and can then play wih the image to your hearts desire.
Posted on: 23 June 2006 by count.d
Derek,
With the contrast range limitations of sensors/film, I tend to use a grad filter of some sort on approx 50% of my outdoor shots.
Posted on: 23 June 2006 by arf005
Thanks guys!
As count.d says Derek, I'm looking to do more landscape shots and (later in the year) at the magical hours around sunrise/set with these high contrast shots I'd guess an ND filter (of some sort) is essential.... Either that or take two images, metered for sky and landscape them merge them in photoshop, but that seems like the long way round to me.....
Cheers,
Ali
Posted on: 23 June 2006 by count.d
Ali,
If you're going to merge two images together with different exposures, be sure to change the shutter speed and not the aperture.
Posted on: 23 June 2006 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by count.d:
Derek,
With the contrast range limitations of sensors/film, I tend to use a grad filter of some sort on approx 50% of my outdoor shots.
With digital the only filters I've found to be useful so far are ND's, ND grads, polariser and IR.
Posted on: 23 June 2006 by Derek Wright
Not having done this myself - but I read of people using raw format and then making two "exposures" of the image in post processing to get the optimum exposure and then using masks and multiple layers to get the balanced image.
I just wipe out the over exposed sky and add in a sky from my collection of sky and cloud pictures. but then finesse has never been my special subject <g>
Posted on: 23 June 2006 by Chris Kelly
Ali
I second the Lee filter suggestion. I like many of us have bought loads of filters in different sizes over the years. The Lee range seem optically excellent and easy to use. I use them on medium format, 35mm and digital cameras. Their NDs work well too.
Because I grew up on film I still prefer to manipulate the image at the taking stage rather that in post-processing. I spend far too much of my life infront of a computer as it is! And as I shoot RAW files now on my Leica DMR I have to spend a fair bit of time in the post processing too. Worth it though.
Posted on: 23 June 2006 by Chris Kelly
By the way,and I have absolutely no connection with them, I have found Speed Graphic to be a really good company to buy from on the web. I think they are
www.speedgraphic.co.ukPosted on: 23 June 2006 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:
I just wipe out the over exposed sky and add in a sky from my collection of sky and cloud pictures. but then finesse has never been my special subject <g>
Why bother taking photos at all; just build them from a photo library?
"Here's me in Venice."
"what was it like?"
"Dunno, never been there."
Posted on: 23 June 2006 by garyi
The better landscapes including the sky pictures I have taken was with full matrix metering. This does not always pan out well for people shots as it can make the skin tones horrid, but for landscapes you can usually get nice results.
Also I go for slight under exposure if its a difficult situation, you can always pull stuff out of the dark.
Posted on: 23 June 2006 by garyi
Posted on: 23 June 2006 by Derek Wright
Nigel C - but it is at least my photo library
Posted on: 24 June 2006 by garyi
My dog is in love.
Posted on: 24 June 2006 by Keith L
I went for a Canon EOS 20D about a year ago. The main reason was because it could take a shift lens, albeit in manual mode. I've been very pleased with the results. If I remember correctly the lens was more expensive than the body. Shooting in a studio together with a Powerbook is a breeze. It even syncs with my 20 year old Bowens flash gear.
Posted on: 25 June 2006 by Van the man
Posted on: 25 June 2006 by garyi
Yup Van thats the one I held, felt very plastic.
Sorry.
