Need some advice on DSLR & lens - DPChallenge Forums

08/23/2005 08:19:47 AM · #26

Oh yeah, lenses really aren't a problem... Sigma lenses are good enough for professionals and most of the range fits the Minolta mount. Sony's recent involvement with Minolta is good news for the format as well. Minolta's own lenses are fantastic but pricey (at the top end) and arguably as good as Canon's. Minolta's cheaper lenses are of an extremely high standard and good value for money... they're very under-rated.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/23/2005 08:36:14 AM · #27

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

Sigma lenses are good enough for professionals

I think a lot of Canon and Nikon pros would disagree with you there.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

08/23/2005 08:49:09 AM · #28

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

I think a lot of Canon and Nikon pros would disagree with you there.

Well, there are plenty of Sigma adverts in magazines featuring pros using top-end Sigma lenses.

08/23/2005 08:53:17 AM · #29

I'm sure Sigma adverts are in no way biased! ;-)

Take a look at SportsShooter. I've seen people recommend an old Canon 80-200/2.8L over a brand new Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX.

08/23/2005 08:59:09 AM · #30

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Sigma lenses are good enough for professionals

I think a lot of Canon and Nikon pros would disagree with you there.

I've just spent the weekend with some of the UK's top press photographers at V Festival, I saw lots of Sigma glass.

08/23/2005 09:00:05 AM · #31

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

I've just spent the weekend with some of the UK's top press photographers at V Festival, I saw lots of Sigma glass.

Percentage wise? Compared to Canon/Nikon?

08/23/2005 09:03:33 AM · #32

I'd estimate about a third.
I have no doubt that Nikon/Canon are of better optical quality than Sigma, but for most uses the differences are slight. Sigma are still good enough for professional use, even if the equivalent Canon/Nikon is slightly better.

08/23/2005 09:08:05 AM · #33

I agree about the quality that the difference is small, and I'm only somewhat surprised about the use. Maybe the opinion of pros is turning to a more even view of Canon/Nikon/Sigma.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/23/2005 09:20:36 AM · #34

You guys have been SO much help! I'm still a beginner, so trying to decide which way to go can be very confusing and overwhelming & it's a lot of money to spend! Right now, before going to the store and trying them out, I'm probably leaning more toward the Canon 20D or the Canon 350D. I do like the idea of the Image Stabilizer that the Minolta has (since my Panasonic has that). Do you know if Canon has any plans on adding an IS to their line? Do you guys usually use a tripod/monopod, etc. all of the time or most of the time? Sometimes I find in very inconvenient to carry one.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/23/2005 09:52:43 AM · #35

I saw a guy, shooting soccer (that's football for the rest of the world) for a feature in the local paper. He was using 2 Nikon D2H cameras, one had an 80-200 f2.8 and the other had a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 He spent most of the time shooting with the Sigma until the action got closer.

Of course, the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is over $2k, so it better be good.

Message edited by author 2005-08-23 09:53:51.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

08/23/2005 11:12:54 AM · #36

Hi Pianomom,
Being a beginner in photography myself, and also lacking a DSLR, I too have to deal with lots of noise in my pictures. I think it's more important in your developement as a photographer to learn to minimize noise in your photos regardless of the camera you are carrying. In fact, I believe that learning to get the most from the equipment you already have will, in the long run, yield far greater improvements in your pictures than jumping right into buying new, and expensive, equipment, when you have already stated that it's confusing to you. Buying into a DSLR may even provide more frustration, especially if you find that your pictures aren't turning out the way you had envisioned.

The questions I posed to you below are some of the ways to minimize noise in your images. If you learn to use these tools effectively then you may gain greater control of your photography and maybe even far greater enjoyment. Eventually you will have the knowledge and experience to go out and purchase the DSLR of your dreams, but at that point, you will know exactly what you want and need.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by pianomom:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Pianomom, a few questions for you:
1) Do you know how to use Neat Image, or another noise reduction program?
2) Do you know how to read, understand and use the histogram in your camera?
3) Do you use a tripod?
4) Do you do a lot of low light shooting?
5) Do you shoot and know how to process RAW files?

Bruchen's picture of the falls is a great one, but I'd bet you could come close to his with your current camera.

1. I have Photoshop Elements 3.0. I've used the noise reduction on it sometimes. (just learned how to do it)
2. To be honest, I really haven't used the histogram much. (Probably should try to use it more, huh?) :)
3. Sometimes I use a tripod & sometimes I don't. It depends on where I am and how much trouble it would be to take it along. I didn't have it with me at Niagra, but I did set my camera on the wide rock ledge to steady it.
4. I have tried to do right much low light shooting and most of the time the pictures have been too grainy. Some are better than others, but not great.
5. My Panasonic doesn't do the RAW, so no, I don't know how to do those. The new FZ30 does support RAW, however.

hankk

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

08/23/2005 11:26:24 AM · #37

There's a lot of good advice in this thread. One more thing to consider is "How much stuff do you want to lug around?" That is, the lenses mentioned in this thread are all excellent lenses for taking pictures. But sometimes other factors are involved in lens choice. For example, if you want to go to a family affair and just carry one lens, the Sigma 18-200 gives you both a wide angle and a telephoto at the expense of apreture (and image quality--its not as sharp as "L" glass). But it will keep the size and weight of your camera down, and having this lens means that you don't end up swapping lenses every 5 minutes at a family picnic at the beach.

Do you want to keep the same range as your current camera's lens? The DMC-FZ20 has a 35mm equivelant 36-432mm zoom range. So you'd need to cover the range from 22.5mm to 270mm on a 1.6 crop factor camera.

Also, you should consider getting a flash unit, like the 580EX. Tripods that are fine for a DMC-FZ20 (1.2 lbs) may not be adequate for a DSLR. And once you feel the quality of a Bogen/Manfrotto tripod, its tough not to use anything less. Add in UV and polarizing filters, extra battery, memory card, camera bag, etc, and you can easily spend $2500.

The camera body is like a PC--expect major changes every couple of years, and expect it to be obsolete in about five years or so. Lenses also improve, but not as much and not as quickly. I suggest putting your money into the lenses now, and upgrading the body in a few years if you find the need to.

Message edited by author 2005-08-23 11:27:28.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

08/23/2005 11:43:35 AM · #38

Originally posted by pianomom:

Do you know if Canon has any plans on adding an IS to their line? Do you guys usually use a tripod/monopod, etc. all of the time or most of the time? Sometimes I find in very inconvenient to carry one.

For (d)SLR's Canon only has IS on the lenses and not on the bodies. I don't expect them to put it on the body either because of Minolta patents. Besides that, Canon already has a whole line of IS lenses from wideangle to tele.

I personally don't use a tripod a lot. That's why I chose an IS (Nikon = VR) telephoto zoom and two fast (f/1.4) primes for low light shooting. Especially the Sigma is great in that respect.
I would use a tripod for a night niagra falls photo, other static night photos, important landscapes, product shots for a museum, macros and stuff like that.

08/23/2005 02:15:46 PM · #39

Is the IS just in the expensive lenses or in most of them?
Thanks so much for the help, guys! :)

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

08/23/2005 02:20:45 PM · #40

Originally posted by pianomom:

Is the IS just in the expensive lenses or in most of them?
Thanks so much for the help, guys! :)

I till increase the price but it's not only in super high end glass. However, in the super high end glass, canon doesn't produce anything without IS except the 400mm 5.6L iirc.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

08/23/2005 03:06:10 PM · #41

Ok, thanks!

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

08/24/2005 12:24:03 PM · #42

I'm a little surprised bobsterlobster didn't comment much on the post processing for the Minoltas.

I hope he agrees with what I say when I say that most guys who are really skilled like him have spent their hours and learned how to use their software well.

For beginners like Pianomom and myself, this can be quite daunting.

Guys who have tons of experience can sort through a thousand pictures relatively quickly and pull a handfull of good images, then apply batch processes and actions which are very effective and well-tuned to their cameras and shooting settings. The time spent by guys like this in post processing is relatively little.

For example, my friend and I shot a snowboarding competition a few weeks ago. He shot 120 pics, I shot 350. When he got home, he had pulled 16 pics, cropped and edited them, had images ready in multiple sizes for a background on his computer, posting to web and for storage on his Sony P910.

I posted around 40 unsorted, poorly cropped unedited pics that are sharp, but loaded with other problems just last night to my yahoo account.

Pathetic isn't it. Skill = low, experience = low, comfort level = low, time consumed = high.

On the other hand, you can usually get pretty similar results from any DSLR by adjusting in camera settings.

The Minolta series is worth some thought.

Having said that, I'm still sticking with my recommendation to pick up the 300D body cheap if it comes available. It won't give you everything you need, but it will give you enough to work with so you can know what is going on with the possibility that you can sell it later at a VERY low financial loss if you A: don't like it or B: want to get a 20D.

Don't forget that a 20D replacement may come out around Feb 2006, at which time, there will be another option as well as a serious influx of 2nd hand 20D's.

Get DSLR as soon as you can tho and show us what your eye sees! :)

08/24/2005 12:35:13 PM · #43

Actually, here's my history of post-processing.

Before I bought a digital camera and joined DPC, I was adept with Photoshop, using it for web-design and graphic design. I also played around with CGI (3D Studio Max, etc), so was aware of issues such as light and composition.
Then I bought a 3MP Pentax Optio S, and loved it's convenient shirt pocket size. The quality wasn't so great though, and I loved Photoshopping decent colours back into the photos, and NeatImage was a Godsend. My photos were HEAVILY edited. I won some ribbons, and decided to upgrade to a Panasonic FZ10. This camera needed far less editing... the noise was far smoother, and the colours straight out of the camera were much warmer and full of character. I still relied on Photoshop though to remove lots of grain in low light, and needed to balance colour in PS. Both cameras so far needed USM in PS.
When I bought the Minolta, I could get away with the least amount of Photoshop work compared to my first two cameras. The shots are pretty much as I want them straight from the camera as the colour rendition is very accurate and the noise is low. However, if I leave sharpening on 0, I still find that fine textures such as grass and sand is way too sharp and bitty, I much prefer to set all the settings to -2 and add them in PS which does a much better job. It takes me seconds to open a photo, adjust curves, and add USM. For me personally, it's the cheaper cameras that need much more Photoshop work but I seem to be unusual in this regard. Anyway, that's my experience which you may or may not find useful.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

08/24/2005 01:05:21 PM · #44

I've also found with my FZ20 that I usually have to use USM & sometimes will adjust color. Sometimes I will try to reduce the noise. (although there are times that's still not enough.) But then I've also gotten some really good photos from the FZ20 too.

edited to say: And MY experience with PS Elements 3 is getting the software after I got the camera for Christmas and learning it on my own! lol (with some help from you guys, books, etc.) I've learned SOOO much about photography since I got my FZ20 & most of it I've learned from this site. Great place to learn!

Message edited by author 2005-08-24 13:08:26.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

08/25/2005 09:16:17 AM · #45

Thanks bobsterlobster for contributing that information regarding your workflow. It's not my thread, but I still appreciate it. I'm still trying to decide between going Canon or KM myself and every time you give details like this about how you run your camera, it's like gold.

Personally, I'm on the low end of the Photoshop skill spectrum. Pianomom is probably above my ability as I don't seem to have the time to do a lot of stuff myself.

In the end, if a person has the time to learn (even if it is purely by ones' self), it is likely that post processing on most upper end cameras will eventually be streamlined to the point of Bobsterlobster's flow.

In favor of the KM 5D is the ability to run a 500 dollar wide aperture lens (like the Tamron 28-80 f2.8) as an IS lens. To buy a 28-80f2.8 (L) IS would be pretty expensive, to the point of where the extra cost is nearly the price of the 5D itself. See also 70-200 or most other bigger lenses.

However... compare the Proprietary Konica Minolta:
70-200mm f/2.8 APO G SSM Autofocus Lens at $1749 (SSM=USM)

to the Canon
70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Autofocus Lens at $1649
70-200mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens at $1099

That's about as helpful as I can be. If it was helpful at all.