Need some advice on DSLR & lens - DPChallenge Forums

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

08/20/2005 10:12:59 PM · #1

I'm trying to get together some information on DSLR cameras. The only digital camera I've ever used is the Panasonic FZ20. While I love the camera, I want one that will give me the really clear pictures. (some of the pictures with the FZ20 are good but a lot also have too much noise in them). Am I right in thinking that a DSLR is the only way to get the REALLY clear pictures? (or would the FZ30 that's coming out with 8 pixels give a much clearer picture since the FZ20 is 5 pixels?) Anyway, one of the cameras that I was looking at is the Canon EOS 20D. I'm used to the Panasonic that has the 12X zoom on it. I read that you need to get other lens to go with the camera. If I just got the body, what lens should I get? (I also read that if you get cheaper or bad lens that the pictures won't be as sharp-which would defeat the purpose of getting the camera in the first place!) These are the kind of lens that I'd like to get:
1-one that has a good zoom on it like the panasonic 12X or more.
2-one that does the macro(?)/really closeups photography, cause I've enjoyed doing that with the FZ20.
3-one for scenery/landscape, etc.
4-good "regular" lens for normal kind of stuff, etc.
5-what would I need for sports?

I know I wouldn't be able to get them all at once, but if I have a list of good ones, so that I won't get the wrong ones, then I can work on getting them as I get the money.
Thanks,
Glenda

Apple iPhone

08/20/2005 10:18:50 PM · #2

BEst thing you can do is go to yoru camera store ... not best buy but a good camera store and hold em ...play with em ... go back a few times til you are comfortable wiht one that you can afford...
...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

08/20/2005 10:21:44 PM · #3

I have a Wolf's Camera near me so I plan on doing that too. That's just one of the cameras that I'm seriously considering. I'm just not used to having to buy extra lens & want to make sure I'll be getting good ones.

nborton

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/20/2005 10:22:09 PM · #4

you're going to be hard pressed to find a "good" zoom that has a 12X or more factor. in general the less the zoom factor the sharper the lens.

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

08/20/2005 10:26:07 PM · #5

What do you use for a zoom then? Would it fit the 20D? What about the other lens? Is the 20D a good one for someone buying their first DSLR?

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

08/20/2005 11:11:13 PM · #6

Hi. I'm not much of an expert, but I am considering the same things you are and my camera is similar to yours.

If noise is your primary enemy (I know it is mine), moving to the FZ30 will not be an answer for you. Regarding cameras, you have 3 choices in the Canon line. Each is better than the last, but more expensive as well.

1 - a used 300d (decent camera with the software easy-to-use software hack) should be available for $500 or less

2 - 350xt

3 - 20D. The 20D is better than the 350xt, but mostly in the way it is used. The noise levels are close enough to be a non-issue in most pics for anyone other than a pixel counter. A lot of females prefer the slightly smaller 350xt which basically does the same thing in most cases. Your comfort level is most important here.

I have been working for a couple of weeks to carefuly plan my lens choices...

Personally, I use a similar camera to the fz20, and I find that I get my best results when I use between 80 and 300mm in film equivalent for portraits. I really like macro photography as well, but having used the S2, I have found that actually, the best way to do macro is to have a lens that does 1:1 but has a little more breathing room than 0cm. Many people use a lens in the 100mm range for macro. It would be wise to take a quick review of your favorite shots and your best shots (not necessarily the same thing - one of my favorite shots is terribly blurred and technically crap) and check to see what your lens was set at for range.

Regarding your price range, I don't know. I will recommend a few lenses on my list that are things culled from the forums here:

50mm f1.8 (canon) This is called the "thrifty fifty" $70US
24-70 2.8 (Tamron) This is HIGHLY recommended. I can't find any mention of it on BHphoto. Someone referred to it as being only around $400US and being comprarable in optics to the canon L version.
Sigma 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 Super MacroII This is a lens with a good focal length. It's $139 at B+H. The f2.8 can be more effective than having a similar lens with IS.

I would say this is a good place to get started. Check into those lenses and how available they are where you are and keep reading forums. Remember that on a 20d or Rebel, all lenses are multiplied by 1.6 to get the true focal length.

50mm=80mm
24-70=38-112
70-300=112-480

Also remember that most zoom lenses get soft once they get into the last 20-25% of their zoom range. This is more pronounced on bigger zoom lenses.

Finally, be as educated as possible before plunking down big cash on a lens. There are a lot of costly lenses that are reportedly soft. While a lot of cheaper lenses can be really good. Also, check out any lens you want to buy in the DPchallenge equipment area under lenses. You can see useful information on how popular it is, some pictures taken by it, even who owns the lenses, so you can see what kind of guy shoots it (is it a guy who owns 50000 worth of glass or is it someone who chose just that lens to splurge on...

Hope my non-expert opinion helps!

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/20/2005 11:11:51 PM · #7

The FZ30 is much improved, but still noisy. A DSLR will provide MUCH cleaner shots, but you'll have to give up the 12X zoom range, movie mode and LCD preview. Because of the way the mirror operates, DSLRs don't have a movie mode and you must look through the viewfinder to compose your shot.

You can get lenses with a large zoom range (like 28-300mm), but the quality won't be nearly as good as lenses with a smaller zoom range. The reason for this is indirectly related to the noise levels... DSLRs have low noise levels mostly because the sensor chip is so much larger than point and shoot cameras. An 8mp 20D will produce clean shots up to ISO800, but an 8mp FZ30 image will look like a mosaic at that setting because the pixels are packed closer together on a smaller chip. The flip side of this is that it's more difficult to design a fast lens with a wide zoom range that will focus light on the larger chip area. Most lenses for DSLR cameras will suffer in some way as the zoom range increases beyond 5X or so. To get sharp photos at all ranges requires either prime lenses or several smaller range zooms for wide, standard and telephoto.

If you also need fast lenses or image-stabilization, then it gets even more complicated and expensive. One solution for that is to get a Minolta DSLR since stabilization is built into the camera body- effectively making ALL lenses image-stabilized. Canon is rumored to be coming out with a 24-105mm f/4L image-stabilized lens that sounds great (we'll have to wait for the reviews & price). If you're determined to get a DSLR and you're on a budget, there are some great lens bargains out there (I'm mostly familiar with Canon). The Canon 50mm f/1.8 ($70), Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 ($370) and Canon 70-200mm f/4L ($570) are all very sharp and inexpensive for their class.

Bear in mind the "crop factor" in DSLRs: the sensor chips are still smaller than 35mm film, so the lens is focusing on a smaller area than it would on a film camera and the image must be enlarged more to get the same print size. That "magnification" is called the crop factor, and it effectively means that a given lens will act as if it were longer (1.6x on a most Canon DSLRs, 1.5x on Nikon, 2.0x on Olympus, etc.). Thus, a 50mm lens will be 80mm on a Canon 20D, 75mm on a Nikon D70, and 100mm on an Olympus eVolt. Keep that in mind while you're shopping.

ph223048

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

08/20/2005 11:38:06 PM · #8

If I had my first purchase to do over again, I would do this. I would buy the Canon 20D and a Tamron 28-75mm/2.8 DI Macro. If you don't have, save up until you get it. You will not be disappointed. Not only that, you will come off the blocks kicking some major a@@!

Message edited by author 2005-08-20 23:38:52.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

08/21/2005 12:35:26 AM · #9

Originally posted by scalvert:

You can get lenses with a large zoom range (like 28-300mm), but the quality won't be nearly as good as lenses with a smaller zoom range. The reason for this is indirectly related to the noise levels... DSLRs have low noise levels mostly because the sensor chip is so much larger than point and shoot cameras.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/21/2005 01:55:22 AM · #10

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Is the reason for large range zooms being soft due indirectly to noise because they have more glass elements and so reduce light being focused on the sensor, and so make for more noise? Then why wouldn't a large range zoom be effected by this at all points in their range and not just at the extremes?

Originally posted by scalvert:
You can get lenses with a large zoom range (like 28-300mm), but the quality won't be nearly as good as lenses with a smaller zoom range. The reason for this is indirectly related to the noise levels... DSLRs have low noise levels mostly because the sensor chip is so much larger than point and shoot cameras.

No, a large zoom range is very difficult to design for in a DSLR because of the large sensor. The "super zooms" are always optical compromises, and cannot be good everywhere in their range. I had a Canon 28-200mm that produced some extremely good pics in its "sweet spot" but at the ends of its range and at maximum aperture it was a weaker performer. I wound up selling the lens, and I replaced it with two lenses; the Canon 24-70L and 70-200L. The replacements are outstanding performers, but together weigh several times what the 28-200 did, and cost nearly seven times what the 28-200 cost me (!). Again, compromises.
One thing is for sure. If you spend $1500 on a DSLR body, plan on spending more than that, possibly much more, on lenses, evntually. You don't absolutely HAVE to, but if you are into photography, not just a snap shooter, then sooner or later it will happen.

shuttergalore

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

08/21/2005 06:18:37 AM · #11

yes, DSLR would definitely cover what you need (flexibilty and feature-wise). however dont limit yourself into that category. there are a number of ec\xcellent EVF compacts in the market that are as good as its DSLR conterpart. I think one good example is Sony 828. It has great reviews and know someone that uses it for travel photography.

but if you really plan to get an SLR the 20D should definitely be on top of your list (great features but a bit stiff on the price, at least for me). If you want value for money i would highly recommend Nikon D70. it has the pro features at low low cost!!!

good luck and try to post your decision.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

08/21/2005 06:51:02 AM · #12

Originally posted by pianomom:

These are the kind of lens that I'd like to get:
1-one that has a good zoom on it like the panasonic 12X or more.
2-one that does the macro(?)/really closeups photography, cause I've enjoyed doing that with the FZ20.
3-one for scenery/landscape, etc.
4-good "regular" lens for normal kind of stuff, etc.
5-what would I need for sports?

I know I wouldn't be able to get them all at once, but if I have a list of good ones,

Well you're looking at at least a long telephoto zoom, like 70-200, 70-300 or 100-400 range to get the same telephoto, that will cover 1 and 5.
You could get one for 3 and 4 combined altough you might suffer at either the tele or the wide end. You might think of a 17-40 (suffers on the tele and isn't maxi wide), something in the range of 12-24 (good wide but no tele at all) or something like a 28-70, but you'll loose a lot of wide opportunities with that one. A 17-85 IS has a good range, but a downside that I'll get to later.
For 2, the macro stuff, you might want a dedicated macro lens, but most goot macro lenses are primes so they will not cover all photo opportunities if you have only one like a 50, 60, 105mm.

Also, this might be important, your FZ20 has a constant relatively fast aperture troughout the range: f/2.8.
Most affordable SLR lenses are relatively slow at f/3.5, f/4.0, f/5.6 even, especially with the long end of long zooms. You will loose a lot of light that you have to compensate for with ISO or shutterspeed if that's possible. For example, when you shoot in the early evening at your maximum zoom, at f/2.8, your shutterspeed might be 1/400s. Now you have a long 'cheap' zoom lens that will give you the same picture. Because it is cheap it might be as slow as f/5.6 at full tele. Your shutterspeed will now be 1/100s. You can hardly hold such a long lens at such a shutterspeed without getting camera shake blurred pictures (unless you have good lens stabilization) so you have to compensate with the ISO like taking it from 100 to 400. Another downside is that such a lens will be very soft at that f/5.6.

Without spending a lot of money you will not easily get a similar coverage as your FZ20. The really good lenses, the fast f/2.8 ones with IS and USM will not only cost you several thousands of dollars, but when you all take them with you, you'll be carrying a bag that weighs 7kg.

BeeGee

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/21/2005 06:51:16 AM · #13

A few questions to the original poster for more clarity:

Do you have an affinity for a certain brand or are you neutral and open in that respect?

What is your budget?

Where would you like to save money? body? lenses? quality or quantity of lenses?

Do you prefer a ladies' camera, i.e. one that fits small hands and is very portable or do you love to hold a big, heavy, well balanced piece of equipment like a Canon 20D or even just the 350D with battery grip that WILL give you results any user of a compact can only dream of?

How many lenses (max) would you like to cover your needs?

Is there a specific area you would like to get started with, to learn the new camera by? Would you mind just getting the 50mm to start with? If you consider that, buy the 35 f/2.0 instead, which IS the equivalent to a 50mm on a full frame/film camera, just as bright and better build quality than the 50mm 1.8 II with its plastic look and feel and bayonett.

The more you can tell us, the better our help can be.

Here's the link to my current equipment which I'm VERY happy with, considering value for money:

//www.dpchallenge.com/profile.php

I didn't have much time for challenges lately (3 since October, when I got my 20D), so you'll see that I did pretty well with a compact that was probably not at the quality level your Panasonic is.

What counts is the eye of the photographer above all, so don't let fashion, trends and status guide you. Stick with your Panasonic if you're happy with it and don't need to print 20x30 inch prints in PERFECT quality. 8x10s don't require a DSLR at all! A good 5MP compact will keep you just as happy in that regard AND it's versatility wrapped into one package, just as you experience with your superzoom.

A 350D is just as good as the 20D if you don't need the extra features the 20D has to offer. I'll personally replace the 28-105 (excellent lens in that version!) and the Tamron 17-35 (not wide enough) with Canon's 24-105 L IS 4.0 that's about to come out and I ordered a refurbished 70-200 2.8 IS L at adorama just the day before yesterday.

Together with a 1.4x tele converter I'll cover everything from 10 to 280mm, (10-22 + 24-105 + 70-200, equals 16-448mm) using just three top lenses and a converter.

There is, by the way, a very good budget solution for everything except the 10-22 (competition is either 10-20 or 12-24 or something in between, as far as I know) in my FUTURE lineup, i.e. the Tamron 24-75 2.8 instead of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f/4 and the Canon 70-200 f/4 or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 instead of the heavier and expensive Canon 2.8 (IS).

Message edited by author 2005-08-21 06:58:43.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

08/21/2005 07:02:12 AM · #14

Thanks Fritz.

Originally posted by kirbic:

No, a large zoom range is very difficult to design for in a DSLR because of the large sensor...

BeeGee

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/21/2005 07:07:02 AM · #15

It can be done, however, as Canon proves with the 28-300 L IS.

It's one hell of a heavy lens, not without flaws but (at a zoom factor close to 11!), good enough to still deserve Canon's L denomination, and thus blow away ANY compact.

It just comes with a certain price tag...

bcoble

Olympus E-300 EVOLT

Olympus 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko Digital ED

08/21/2005 10:30:57 AM · #16

I have the same issues on what to do. I too have a DMC FZ20. I also have a N60 with a Tamron 100-300mm lens and a Nikon 35-80mm lens.

I am looking hard at the specs on the new DMC FZ30 that will be out hopefully sometimes in sept.

I want to upgrade and I like the fact that the FZ30 will be at 8mp. I do alot of point and shoot as well as manual. I am presently spending a lot more time in post processing and I find that 5mp (FZ20) is just not enough. The FZ30 records in Raw, Tiff and Jpeg. I like that.

Now with the Nikon lens I have, Should I go with a DSLR.
I like the 434mm the FZ30 will have. Available accessories I understand will be a wide angle lens and a tele converter, filters ect. I did not see a fisheye lens on the list yet.

Approx cost for the FZ30 700.00. I would expect to spend right around
1000.00 with some accessories.

Thanks all for listening to me.

I know looking at this thread, most of what can be said has been said. Just wanted people to know that I too have a question on what too do.

Message edited by author 2005-08-21 10:37:08.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

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

08/21/2005 09:52:30 PM · #17

bcoble. Don't forget that the FZ30 will have a 58mm (?) thread right on the lens barrel. Any fish-eye converter will work. Lens converters is the best that camera can do. It's still going to be an amazing camera.

With 8MP on only a slightly larger sensor, it will still be plagued by the same noise in shadows problem of all the big compact zooms. Some have commented that in the samples, even at ISO 100, there is noise in the shadows. I have similar results with my cam. Just a fact of life.

According to DPreview, average pixel size on digicams is 2 microns square. average pixel size on a dslr is 5.5-6.5 microns square. This is a huge difference, as it is a squared measurement. 2 squared is 4. six squared is 36. The difference is 9x!

The bigger the pixel, the more light it can gather. The more light it gathers, the more accurate the pic. To imagine how this works, picture light as being a big barrel full of basketballs. Now chuck all the basketballs in one big throw towards the hoop. Gather many basketballs/photons? Now do the same thing with a hoop 9 times larger...

That is why, while under ideal conditions a P&S compact camera can get pics almost as nice as a DSLR, but in ANY other conditions, it cannot deliver. Of course, a P&S can deliver decent pics if you learn to control your shooting conditions.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

08/21/2005 09:59:57 PM · #18

Originally posted by BeeGee:

Sorry I was slow to answer back! We just got back from helping our son move back to college.....Thanks so much for all your responses!

I'll try to answer your questions. I know absolutely nothing about buying lens or using DSLR's! lol The two cameras that I've had was a 35 mm camera with a zoom and now my panasonic. So, I'm used to the convenience of just pushing a button and voila -I'm looking through the lens and I have a great zoom (although all the way out it's not as sharp), or if I want to do a really close up shot I push another button and can do that, or another button for in between, etc. Well, you get the picture. Anyway, while some of my pictures are pretty clear, there have also been a lot that have too much noise in them. Ideally, I'd love the convenience of the Panasonic but with the really clear pictures of the DSLR. I know, so would everyone else! lol I just know that with the Panasonic, there will be times where I'll want a really clear pic & it's frustrating knowing that no matter what I do, I'm not going to get that. I think the last straw that got me to really thinking about upgrading was when we went to Niagra Falls. I got some decent day time pictures but I was trying to get some at night with the diff. colored lights. Even the best one was grainy. Then I saw the picture that "bruchen" took. We were there on the very same day. There's a HUGE difference in our pictures. I do realize that he was using an expensive lens too but I would imagine that my picture would've look MUCH better with a DSLR.
Ok, for your questions:
1. No, I don't really have an affinity to a certain brand. I'm open to other brands. The only reason I was looking at the Canon first over the Nikon was because it has the 8 m. pixels whereas the Nikon has 6. Are the pictures just as clear with the Nikon? I like the idea of the image stabilizer (like my FZ 20) that the Minolta has, but I had read something on here about watching out for the availability of lens of certain brands verses other brands, etc. Is the Minolta brand big enough that there won't be a problem getting plenty of good lens, etc?
2. Ok, my budget...I'd like to keep the costs down as much as I can, obviously, but can probably spend a couple thousand, maybe a little more if I really have to. I figured it would be around $2000-2500 when I first started looking at them. If I had to, I could get the camera and a couple lens and then save for the rest of the lens, etc.
3. I'm not sure I know enough about the DSLRs and lens to answer this one! I guess I'd want a decent price on both the camera and lens. I mean, if I bought a nice camera but then all of the lens cost me $600-$1000 and up, it sure wouldn't take very long to spend a lot of money. I'm not really even sure how many lens I would need. I like to take scenic pictures, closeups (like flower, etc.), some sports although after this year, that may not be a priority because both of our kids will then be in college so they won't be in high sch. playing sports, etc. I like taking pictures of our puppy, really all kinds of things. I just wanted to make sure that what I got would give me clear sharp pictures.
4. As to size, I do have small hands but I don't mind the size of the FZ20 at all. It's a nice fit. How much bigger and heavier are the Canon, Nikon or Minolta? I do have some arthritis in my right hand but it hasn't been a problem with my FZ20 so far.
5. I don't really have a set number of how many lens I would need. I imagine that with time that would probably grow! lol Right now, I'm thinking probably around 3 or 4. Does that sound about right for now? (like I said earlier, I'm used to the lens on the FZ20 with the "regular" length and the 12X zoom and everything in between.)
6. I don't have a preference to an area to start with. Mostly what I've done so far since getting the FZ20 have been the scenic, flowers, kids and our dog.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

08/21/2005 11:37:44 PM · #19

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.

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

08/22/2005 08:57:40 AM · #20

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

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.

Message edited by author 2005-08-22 09:07:30.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

08/22/2005 11:55:58 AM · #21

The difference from 6 MP to 8MP is minimal. The primary difference from the 300D to the 20D or 350XT is the noise. The two newer 8mp cameras have excellent noise handling.

The 300D is roughly on par with most of the other DSLRS with Nikon probably at the top of that heap (according to DPReview anyhow).

The Minolta 5D may be worth looking at, but I checked it out myself and decided that it would require far too much mucking about with post processing (better results are possible from the Minolta products according to many, but the pictures look crummy coming from the camera and require some serious skill and playing around to get looking nice). Considering that most people that shoot a lot would much prefer to have a low Aperture than Image stabilization, the issue of IS becomes a little less important and you end up paying roughly the same for lenses regardless of the platform. (I would imagine a minolta 5D with a 28-75 f2.8 probably has a little more elbow room though)

You might consider seriously picking up a second hand 300D and the lenses that were suggested by Bee Gee and some of the others.

That way, you can spend around 1000 dollars on the three lenses and maybe a bit extra if you snag a 1.4x TC for the 70-200L and still have a complete setup that can be resold for very little loss of money.

The 300D is good enough that you really ought not to have to worry much about noise until you start doing really creative shots. After you have used the 300D for six months, you will be in a really good position to make more decisions on where to go from there.

Check out the equipment section of this site to see pics that have been taken with a 300D. You will see that noise is a largely a non-issue. If it really bothers you that much, a 2nd hand 20D will be cheap six months down the road and will likely be replaced by feb 2006 as well.

A 300D should be available for 3-400US. In six months, you will probably get 250-350...

Approx Price tally:

300D 400
50mm 1.8 70
Tam28-75f2.8 370
Can70-200LF4.0 580
---- 1420

Flash 300
Tripod ?

Still a Fair bit of room to move there.

08/22/2005 03:18:21 PM · #22

Originally posted by eschelar:

So the Canon 20D and the 350xt are better than the 300D as far as noise?
Thanks for that additional info on the Minolta. That was one I was considering because of the Image Stab. but it sounds like it might be a pain if you have to do THAT much post processing. I have to do some now but not what I'd call a major amount.

BeeGee