Beginner About to take it to the next level - which camera?

N

Noc

Messages
36
Edit My Images
No
Hello all,

Long post alert!

I've decided to replace my basic compact camera with something much more professional, especially as my enthusiasm has reached the next level, and that I'm beginning to publish written articles and photography for truck magazines.

Because of their versatility, I've decided to buy a DSLR camera with a kit lens. Knowing myself as well as I do, I know I will eventually grow frustrated with an entry level one. I therefore feel it's a shrewder move to invest in something a little more advanced and grasp the increased functionality as I progress. I have a budget of £1500 and would prefer this to include an additional wide-angle or telephoto lens - either initially or later.

I feel primarily drawn to vehicles, portraits, and cityscapes - so mostly static stuff. I love night photography so I expect to be photographing in low light as much as day light. I feel really drawn to the way perspective is compressed through telephoto lenses, and, mindful of magazine publications, I will be aiming to achieve this effect with articulated lorries.

I am hoping to receive some help and recommendations regarding specific makes and models of cameras and lenses because I find the marketplace overwhelming, and don't wish to be swayed by persuasive marketing aimed at the clueless beginner. Any old turd can be packaged sweetly but let you down in its substance - just think back to past lovers for example! So it's best to ask people who use such cameras. The one thing to bear in mind with me is quality. I appreciate all-round quality and am always prepared to pay for it.

The following is my criteria:

  • Must be DSLR, and preferably more advanced than the most basic entry level ones.

  • Camera and lens must be of good, all round quality - build, components, and the images they produce.

  • Must have a good quality sensor. Also, the sensor size is where I really need some sound help and advice. I do eventually intend to photograph cityscapes, and by my understanding a full-frame sensor would be more suitable. Am I correct in thinking that ultra-wide angle lenses are available for APS-C cameras? And if so, do such lenses substantially compensate for the lack of a full-frame sensor, or are they a waste of time? What's the general consensus on full-frame vs. APS-C sensors?

  • I would prefer an AF system which is simple enough (or could be simple enough) for a beginner to use, yet has a more advanced capability for when I feel more confident, as I hope to use focus more creatively as I advance over the years.



If you've read this far and feel you can advise, help, or recommend in any way, I'd be very grateful.

Thank you.
 
Have you considered 2nd hand equipment? I recently sold a Nikon D700 and even though the camera was released 6 years ago and is no longer a current model it still holds its head high and can be picked up 2nd hand for around the £600 mark which leaves you plenty left in the budget for something better than a kit lens. It is solidly built and very very good in low light situations. My reason for selling was because I had another camera that was similar in all aspects and I wanted one with high resolution (D810) so now I have 2 cameras that have there own different strengths if that makes sense. If after a few months you don't get on with it I doubt you will lose much financially when you sell on so could be an option for you...................
 
Thank you Ady, yes, second hand is an option I would consider.
 
I've been very happy with my Nikon D7100 and 16-85mm zoom. The lens focal length range is very versatile and I have no issues shooting at night, but then I do use a tripod and iso's between 100 and 400. There are some very good ultra wide angle zooms for crop sensor camera's, but their use certainly doesn't compensate for not having a full frame sensor. They are very useful for shooting wide expanses or exaggerating perspective. I regularly use an 8mm fisheye with a 180 deg field of view. Obviously a full frame camera will have lower noise levels, ideal if you are hand holding in very poor light. I suspect what you would really want may be outside your budget though. Take your time making your choice, only buy once you are 100% sure you are making the right decision.
 
Noc said:
Must have a good quality sensor. Also, the sensor size is where I really need some sound help and advice. I do eventually intend to photograph cityscapes, and by my understanding a full-frame sensor would be more suitable. Am I correct in thinking that ultra-wide angle lenses are available for APS-C cameras? And if so, do such lenses substantially compensate for the lack of a full-frame sensor, or are they a waste of time? What's the general consensus on full-frame vs. APS-C sensors?
Click to expand...

As far as I know (and I'm sure I'll be corrected pretty soon if I'm wrong...) there isn't much difference between wide angle ability of full frame and APS-C. Sigma make the 12-24mm which is I think the widest FF zoom lens available and I've owned one and thought it was very impressive and Sigma also make a 8-16mm lens for APS-C and it works out pretty much the same field of view. So, there's maybe not a lot in it wide field of view wise between FF and APS-C unless someone knows different.

Regarding the FF v Smaller Systems image quality argument... personally I think there's not a lot in it unless you...
- Shoot at the very highest ISO's.
- Print the size of a barn.
- Crop like mad/pixel peep/view with a magnifying glass - at very high magnification.

Personally I've gone mirrorless with Sony A7 (FF) and Panasonic MFT and no I longer own a DSLR and doubt I ever will again.

PS. If you're getting into wide angle you should appreciate that it's (arguably) one of the most difficult things to do well. If you go down this route I recommend you look at some on line tutorials and articles on the subject.
 
Last edited:
in regard to shooting landscapes on APS-C.. you have ( im talking canon range here as not familiar with nikon or others ) the sigma 10-20, canon 10-22, tokina 11-16, the new canon 10-18, tokina 12-24.
all superb lenses that will give outstanding results however bear in mind there are plenty of landscapes that are not shot with UWA lenses and i would go as far to say as the higher number are shot with what you could call normal focal range.
 
Noc said:
I feel primarily drawn to vehicles, portraits, and cityscapes - so mostly static stuff. I love night photography so I expect to be photographing in low light as much as day light. I feel really drawn to the way perspective is compressed through telephoto lenses, and, mindful of magazine publications, I will be aiming to achieve this effect with articulated lorries.
Click to expand...

Noc said:
Must be DSLR, and preferably more advanced than the most basic entry level ones.
Click to expand...

Don't rule out mirrorless cameras if you're mostly shooting static subjects (mirrorless do moving subjects as well, but with static subjects there's no significant focusing advantage with a DSLR over a mirrorless system).


The APS vs. APS-C vs. MFT argument has been hashed over a thousand times on this forum, finding a thread where the opinions are banded about, lines drawn and trenches dug shouldn't be a problem. At the end of the day, for the type of images you have described the difference between APS and APS-C sensor is not going to result in a materially different image quality in the end result. There will be differences if you took exactly the same shot using the same equipment, from the same spot and the only difference was the sensor size - but in reality you don't shoot APS and APS-C cameras from exactly the same spot using exactly the same lens. You subconsciously adapt in your choice of shooting position and lens choice.
 
Alastair said:
Don't rule out mirrorless cameras if you're mostly shooting static subjects (mirrorless do moving subjects as well, but with static subjects there's no significant focusing advantage with a DSLR over a mirrorless system).


The APS vs. APS-C vs. MFT argument has been hashed over a thousand times on this forum, finding a thread where the opinions are banded about, lines drawn and trenches dug shouldn't be a problem. At the end of the day, for the type of images you have described the difference between APS and APS-C sensor is not going to result in a materially different image quality in the end result. There will be differences if you took exactly the same shot using the same equipment, from the same spot and the only difference was the sensor size - but in reality you don't shoot APS and APS-C cameras from exactly the same spot using exactly the same lens. You subconsciously adapt in your choice of shooting position and lens choice.
Click to expand...

:agree:

 
aps v aps-c ??? dont you mean aps-c v FF?
aps was some old format invented by kodak that never really took off.

one thing to consider is focal length differences between APS-C and FF. ( normally being around 1.6 x on APS-C ) so a 50mm lens on APS-C is around 35mm on FF.
so if you do wnat to shoot wide angle then on aps-c a 10-20mm is equal to around a 16-32mm on FF.
 
Thanks all. There's some food for thought here.

I will likely spend my budget on a body and kit lens and learn how to use light, framing, and composition for a good while. I'm sure the ways in which I lean or develop will dictate which additional lens(es) to buy in future.

minnnt said:
:agree:

Click to expand...

That's sorted. 8 x 10 it is then!o_O
 
You have to be happy with what you've bought... if you end up with a camera that every time you turn it on you think, "I should have bought the other one" then your photography hobby will likely be short and unhappy (or expensive as you change your kit!)

So it needs to be a choice you're 100% behind, whatever it is. Be honest with yourself: do you want a FF because it's a theoretically better camera and used more by pros? Fine - not a problem, but also remember that it has disadvantages: it is likely to be bigger, heavier, have more expensive "bits" and you won't get as long a reach with telephoto. They're reasons (along with cost) why your average punter isn't best suited to a pro-level camera. But you're not an average punter, you're you.

Based on what you've said in your posts above, an APS-C camera (or even MFT) will be fine. It will do everything you need of it and most likely (not being rude!) you will be constrained by the limits of your abilities for quite a long time before the camera becomes the problem - even with an consumer-grade body.

The most important thing you can do with a camera is actually get out there and use it. If you have a very expensive, heavy and quite large body and big pro-grade lenses, will you take it everywhere? Will you "risk it" in poor conditions: sandy beaches, storms, muddy fields? It's actually what pro kit is designed to handle, but will you feel comfortable doing it?

The more you use your camera and the more photos you take and the more you'll get out of your hobby (and the quicker you'll improve). If, being honest, you think you'll be happier with a FF pro-grade camera, then it's your money and your choice. If you think you'll use a cheaper camera more and perhaps plan to upgrade in a couple of years' time then go for that.

There isn't a right answer except the one you're happy with.
 
Ok. So you have £1500 to blow on a camera and lens or two, progressing from compact. Bit like going from a trike to a Yamaha 1200.

Such an investment for something for an item you might regret buying later on....and cameras are not investments

Consider models such as the Nikon D5300, Pentax K5ii and Canon 700D/70D with mid-range lenses, they are all quality - other brands/model offer'professional' quality - you do not have to pay £1500 to get this. I have seen photos taken on a H4-D 'blad which were truly diabolical, yet professionals were using 4-6MP cameras 10 years ago. Camera bodies are not investments so if you spend a lot on a body you will lose a lot in depreciation, good lenses keep their value better.
 
Thanks pjm 1. You've laid it out nicely.

From what I've read and watched it seems APS-C is definitely the way to go for me.
 
dean messenger said:
aps v aps-c ??? dont you mean aps-c v FF?
aps was some old format invented by kodak that never really took off.

one thing to consider is focal length differences between APS-C and FF. ( normally being around 1.6 x on APS-C ) so a 50mm lens on APS-C is around 35mm on FF.
so if you do wnat to shoot wide angle then on aps-c a 10-20mm is equal to around a 16-32mm on FF.
Click to expand...
No it's not. A crop factor is just that. It crops the image, a focal length is a physical property of a lens.

Rather than thinking in terms of multipliers, it's simpler to just accept that a 35mm ish lens is standard on APSc. A 50mm lens is std on crop, etc.
 
Here's a Fuji specific shopping list, as you wanted specific recommendations for models (it just happens that Amazon is coming up cheapest on CPB for these items and they're on the official Fuji supplier list for promotions)..
  • X-Pro1 body - £746 from Amazon
  • XF 55-200mm - £539 from Amazon, I'm suggesting a longer zoom than the normal kit lens as you specifically asked for telephoto compression
  • XF 23mm - £720 from Amazon, excellent slightly-wide fast prime
  • £100 cashback from Fuji for the X-Pro1
  • £200 cashback from Fuji for buying two XF lenses
Total £1,705 after cashback.

Slightly over budget. There are a few options though:
  • Switching the X-Pro1 for the X-E2 would lose the optical viewfinder but improve some other performance aspects (slightly better sensor, signifcantly better EVF with the latest firmware) and would drop £100 from the bill.
  • Switching the 23mm for the 27mm would drop nearly £400 from the total, or for the 35mm would reduce the total by £300. The 35mm is just as capable as the 23mm but the extra width may benefit your chosen subjects.
For future reference, there is a XF 10-20mm ultrawide available as well as 12mm and 14mm primes.

This is just one option from a Fuji convert. I'll let the Canon, Nikon and Sony fans make their own suggestions ;)
 
Why does it have to be a DSLR? Mirrorless system cameras are just as capable, until you get into tracking autofocus and for the moment, specialty lenses (such as tilt-shift) and external flash units.

If you buy from DigitalRev, you can squeeze a Fujifilm X-T1 with 18-55mm f/2.8-4 and 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 in your budget. That isn't possible with Amazon, for example. Or, you could get an Olympus OM-D E-M1 with 12-40mm f/2.8 and 40-150mm f/4-5.6 for roughly the same total - whichever one you prefer, really, as both are excellent options.

If it really has to be a DSLR for some odd reason, I believe the Pentax K-3 is the best camera in that range. There are, of course, the Nikon D7100 and Canon EOS 70D, which are excellent cameras as well with a broader selection of lenses to choose from, but the Pentax K-mount system isn't bad at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Noc
If you are going APS-C, consider the Pentax K3. Ignored by many because it's not Canon, Nikon or Sony, but just quietly wins awards and plaudits from the Photographic Press. Big plus from your perspective would be it's weather sealing with a range of lenses to match.

Yes I shoot Pentax, but not as a fan boy, just someone who recognises good build quality and value for money.

Pentax doesn't offer the same range of esoteric lenses, nor the professional level support that you can get (at a price) from Canon and Nikon, but does offer cameras designed for photographers and backwards compatibility with every Pentax lens ever made, so plenty of older high quality glass available at good prices.
 
JohnX said:
If you are going APS-C, consider the Pentax K3. Ignored by many because it's not Canon, Nikon or Sony, but just quietly wins awards and plaudits from the Photographic Press. Big plus from your perspective would be it's weather sealing with a range of lenses to match.

Yes I shoot Pentax, but not as a fan boy, just someone who recognises good build quality and value for money.

Pentax doesn't offer the same range of esoteric lenses, nor the professional level support that you can get (at a price) from Canon and Nikon, but does offer cameras designed for photographers and backwards compatibility with every Pentax lens ever made, so plenty of older high quality glass available at good prices.
Click to expand...

I'm a Pentax user as well (K5). A few things to consider re: Pentax:

1. Doesn't have the same range of AF lenses that Canikon has... sure, there are hundreds and hundreds of great quality (OLD) manual lenses available which bolt straight onto modern bodies but the AF range is narrower. If you want a longish telephoto prime f/2.8 you'll be lucky...
2. No full frame SLR - given the wait for one, it's quite possible there never will be. Many modern Pentax lenses have been designed for APS-C so even if there is a FF option in the future you may need to buy new glass anyway.
3. No tethering capability - may be important if you want to do studio sessions.
4. Pentax TTL flash isn't as reliable as other systems... I find it fine but some zoom lenses can really confuse it leading to over/under exposure (obviously fine if you use manual flashes).

But...

5. Simply amazing value. I picked up my K5 body in January second hand for £300 with sub 20k actuations. For a 16MP 7fps weatherproof (& metal) body, that's bloomin' good value. Obviously the K3 is more "normally" priced.
6. Very esoteric selection of old manual lenses and many are dirt cheap (and fantastic quality)... if that's your thing.
7. Awesome "Limited" range of top drawer prime lenses... I don't have any but they're small, sharp, usual fairly fast and ok value (and weatherproof).
8. Nice DA* range of "prosumer" weatherproofed lenses - fast and great sharpness but heavier & larger than the Limiteds.
9. Lovely small body (I'm still talking about cameras by the way) - works well in my hands but might be a negative if you're Peter Schmeichel.
 
pjm1 said:
2. No full frame SLR - given the wait for one, it's quite possible there never will be. Many modern Pentax lenses have been designed for APS-C so even if there is a FF option in the future you may need to buy new glass anyway.
Click to expand...
That shouldn't really be among the "few things to consider", in my opinion. Most photographers don't need 35mm "full frame", and that includes many who use it. With current APS-C sensors performing fabulously up to ISO 6400, and with quite a few f/2.8 zoom lenses available (and, of course, even faster primes), there's really not much more a photographer needs.
It is something "to consider" for a very specific group of photographers.
 
Ido, maybe it "shouldn't" but it will be. What we need and what we aspire to have are completely different things and that's what marketing gurus prey on, of course.

It doesn't change the fact that it is something to consider for an awful lot of people. It shouldn't be, but it is and it will continue to be.

If you look at my post earlier in the thread I've suggested that the camera (even an entry grade one) is unlikely to be a limiting factor for a long time. That doesn't stop people in similar situations buying something far more advanced. There's nothing wrong with that - it's their money and their choice. If they're happier and it makes them want to get out and use their camera more then who am I (or you or anyone) to say that's wrong?

I know the kind of person I am and I hate having something and wishing I'd got the "better" version. But I bought a K5 after quite a bit of research and although it's not the best camera out there it suited my criteria. And boy was it good value! Does that mean I'd encourage others to? Well, it depends on whether their criteria are anything like mine...
 
It's odd, I've frequented a few photography fora, and here the automatic move to full frame is stronger than on any other.

Personally I find it ridiculous, but then I find the notion of 'full frame' ridiculous because I used to shoot medium format, in my youth I've used everything from a disc camera to a medium format SLR, so the idea that 35mm film is the 'standard' is laughable.
 
As a present day medium format film user (as well as digital), I also find the marketing term Full Frame misleading. My 6 x 6 exposures are more than four times the size of a 35mm frame. Indeed, 35mm was often referred to as Miniature right up until even smaller 110 became popular, then even smaller Disk, and the unpopular Kodak APS film towards the end of the Age of Film domination.

Personally as an amateur enthusiast, I'm perfectly content with APS-C on my digital SLR cameras.

Waiting for a Large Format flat film enthusiast to one up on me ;-)
 
Phil V said:
It's odd, I've frequented a few photography fora, and here the automatic move to full frame is stronger than on any other.

Personally I find it ridiculous, but then I find the notion of 'full frame' ridiculous because I used to shoot medium format, in my youth I've used everything from a disc camera to a medium format SLR, so the idea that 35mm film is the 'standard' is laughable.
Click to expand...

Not really though... "the standard" usually equates to being towards the upper end of average consumption. Not "gold standard" and certainly not the best of the best.

Consider something stupidly tangential: fruit & veg. "The standard" is probably Morrisons vs Tesco vs Sainsbury with Waitrose being considered "la di dah" (full frame, if you will). Of course, popping down to your local greengrocer would be closer to (say) medium format and growing your own with love and attention is certainly the large format of the horticultural world. Instead, though, your average Joe is debating whether Tesco or Lidl or Aldi is acceptable or perhaps just go camera phone and pop down to Iceland.
 
pjm1 said:
Not really though... "the standard" usually equates to being towards the upper end of average consumption. Not "gold standard" and certainly not the best of the best.

Consider something stupidly tangential: fruit & veg. "The standard" is probably Morrisons vs Tesco vs Sainsbury with Waitrose being considered "la di dah" (full frame, if you will). Of course, popping down to your local greengrocer would be closer to (say) medium format and growing your own with love and attention is certainly the large format of the horticultural world. Instead, though, your average Joe is debating whether Tesco or Lidl or Aldi is acceptable or perhaps just go camera phone and pop down to Iceland.
Click to expand...
I like to spread my shopping. I use the greengrocer (mf) a lot, but I'll also use Morrison's (APS-C digital), and 35mm film (would that be Sainsbury's?). I'll even use Poundland sometimes (disposable cameras). After all - it's all food for the eating. The result is more important than the gear.
 
And therein lies the rub (and Phil's point): a Michelin starred chef will be able to create something wonderful with Iceland ingredients whereas a student cook may well turn fabulous materials into swill. The raw materials only become limiting once you really know what you're doing.
 
Great discussion, really shed some much-needed light on the topic :clap:
 
I have gone down the MFT route and bought a GX7. I think it is great and now the live view eyepiece is so developed, I prefer that to a SLR viewfinder. I can see what the picture I take will look like, I can use vintage lenses stopped down and check that I have the focal range right, exposure will be ok, shutter speed is sensible etc. etc.
I was playing with my brothers Canon SLR yesterday, admittedly old, but there was nothing showing on the back until the shot was taken, and the view through the eyepiece was just that, a view through the eyepiece with no shooting information, focal range etc as the camera doesn't stop down until it takes the shot.

I think the arguments over SLR and hence seeing the view in a mirror, and using live view on an OLED display have now been lost, after all you are taking a digital image, so surely you actually need to see a digital display of that proposed future image to ensure it is what you are trying to achieve, with to hand enough information about the planned shot to know it will turn out ok?.

What I never expected when I bought it back in April was that I would become interested in old film camera lenses and start buying them. They are so easy to use on a camera which uses live view, and because of the format of MFT, virtually any lens ever made which can work manually will fit onto the camera with a suitable cheap adapter, with no risk of protrusions catching the mirror inside etc. I have so far stuck to M42 screw thread lenses as they are plentiful and you only really need one adapter. It is extremely satisfying buying a mint vintage lens, well made in metal and glass & often in its original case for under £30, and find it gives a better picture and is faster than the plastic kit zoom which came with the camera. A prime lens for the GX7 of the same general size could easily cost £450+, and all you are really gaining is autofocus, and perhaps a more clinical perfection in the image, which itself is largely achieved in the camera software by adjusting the resultant image. If required the same adjustments could be done manually in suitable photo software, but I like the old fashioned feel of the resultant images, complete with the slight imperfections.
The GX7 even has basic built in stabilisation in the body, making the old lenses even more usable. Go with the newer Olympus cameras which look like scaled down SLR's, and they have built in 5 axis stabilisation and must be even better with vintage lenses.
 
Ken3966 said:
...
What I never expected when I bought it back in April was that I would become interested in old film camera lenses and start buying them. They are so easy to use on a camera which uses live view, and because of the format of MFT, virtually any lens ever made which can work manually will fit onto the camera with a suitable cheap adapter, with no risk of protrusions catching the mirror inside etc. .
Click to expand...

i actually much prefer manual film lenses to modern af lenses but id be worried about having no mechanical link between the lens and the body as the preview would be "stopped down" giving a dark preview - i have the preview button if i want it but much prefer a bright viewfinder image to make focussing easier
 
boliston said:
i actually much prefer manual film lenses to modern af lenses but id be worried about having no mechanical link between the lens and the body as the preview would be "stopped down" giving a dark preview - i have the preview button if i want it but much prefer a bright viewfinder image to make focussing easier
Click to expand...
Adrian, you need to pick up a camera with a decent EVF and see just how well the viewfinder compensates for a lens being stopped down. This is not a real-world problem with the right camera body.
 
My mind is made up regarding sensor size. I am going with APS-C.

What I'm a little embarrassed to admit is that despite all my reading (both here, and books I own) I was not aware of mirrorless cameras. Am I correct to assume mirrorless are just as functional and capable as an SLR, but that instead of previewing one's photo through a viewfinder one views it on a screen? As the sensor 'sees' it?

Gosh, I didn't expect such a response. Although I understand the vast majority of all the advice, terms, and numbers, I'm at a loss at which make and model camera to purchase, and whether to go for contemporary or vintage lenses. Something about the Pentax K3 seems appealing though, as it seems a bit of a quirky and overlooked oddity. In other areas of my life I've found overlooked oddities are often the richest gems.

But anyway, thank you for all your input. I'm going to compile a list of camera bodies from this thread and thoroughly research each one.
 
boliston said:
i actually much prefer manual film lenses to modern af lenses but id be worried about having no mechanical link between the lens and the body as the preview would be "stopped down" giving a dark preview - i have the preview button if i want it but much prefer a bright viewfinder image to make focussing easier
Click to expand...
Well that only matters on an SLR, as the MFT doesn't use a mirror and hence shows the actual picture to be taken, hence it of course is not dark. If it was dark it would mean the camera is unable to take the shot at all. The adapter on M42 lenses makes the aperture change immediately, unlike on old film cameras or modern SLR's, otherwise how can the camera show a live view of the amount of the scene which will be in focus.

With the old fashioned SLR cameras, which I am sure will slowly fade away into history as live view improves, you have to compose the shot, then stop down the aperture to take the picture. How can you assess the range of the picture which will be in focus?
 
Noc said:
What I'm a little embarrassed to admit is that despite all my reading (both here, and books I own) I was not aware of mirrorless cameras. Am I correct to assume mirrorless are just as functional and capable as an SLR, but that instead of previewing one's photo through a viewfinder one views it on a screen? As the sensor 'sees' it?
Click to expand...
SLRs have the edge when trying to focus on small and/or fast moving objects, although mirrorless cameras are catching up quickly. Mirrorless generally have the edge with lens choice, shorter flange distances allow a greater range of lenses from other manufacturers to be mounted via an adapter.

With some mirrorless cameras you only have a rear screen, others have a screen inside an electronic viewfinder (EVF) that you use as you would a normal viewfinder. A very few have hybrid viewfinders that include an optical rangefinder style viewfinder as well as the electronic viewfinder (the Fuji X-Pro1). Refresh rates on early EVF camera were slow and resulted in a smearing when you moved the camera quickly, but the more recent models have faster screens and the problem is much reduced.
 
Alastair said:
Adrian, you need to pick up a camera with a decent EVF and see just how well the viewfinder compensates for a lens being stopped down. This is not a real-world problem with the right camera body.
Click to expand...

Mirrorless cameras I've tried seem to have some sort of lag compared with an optical viewfinder and they often seem to have to rely on some sort of focussing aid like magnifying part of the image - I wonder how many EVFs can focus as well as an OVF just by looking at the image of the object you are focussing on, and without having to rely on "focus aids"? I've also heard reports of lenses loosing correct infinity focus when used with an adaptor - this would really bug me as with a nikon manual focus lens on a nikon body you always get a "true" infinity stop on the lens. Also there is the possible issue with battery drain as an OVF does not require powering and I don't want to have to keep switching an EVF on and off all the time.
 
Always with the negative waves, Moriarty, always with the negative waves..

 
boliston said:
Mirrorless cameras I've tried seem to have some sort of lag compared with an optical viewfinder and they often seem to have to rely on some sort of focussing aid like magnifying part of the image - I wonder how many EVFs can focus as well as an OVF just by looking at the image of the object you are focussing on, and without having to rely on "focus aids"? I've also heard reports of lenses loosing correct infinity focus when used with an adaptor - this would really bug me as with a nikon manual focus lens on a nikon body you always get a "true" infinity stop on the lens. Also there is the possible issue with battery drain as an OVF does not require powering and I don't want to have to keep switching an EVF on and off all the time.
Click to expand...

The focus aid is extremely useful, it magnifies part of the image and it is much easier to see that it is focused. This is only used of course if you use the manual focus. The camera when on manual focus, even with vintage lens effectively highlights that part of the image which is in the focused zone. The newer cameras are better and now focus virtually as fast automatically as the best SLR's. I would not be able to focus an SLR through the mirror as well as the image is too small. (I seem to recall my OM10 years ago had two circles and when they matched it was focussed, not sure if modern SLR's do something similar via the mirror?

I am not aware of any manual lenses that can't be adapted to work on MFT, and all the ones I have focus correctly to infinity. Issues are only occurring when very cheap adapters are used which are not the right size. Some SLR users also like to use vintage lens, bt hey have to be very carefull as some lens project into the camera body as they adjust, and can hit the lens. THere are some SLR's which as you say can't focus to infinity with adapted lenses
 
boliston said:
Mirrorless cameras I've tried seem to have some sort of lag compared with an optical viewfinder and they often seem to have to rely on some sort of focussing aid like magnifying part of the image - I wonder how many EVFs can focus as well as an OVF just by looking at the image of the object you are focussing on, and without having to rely on "focus aids"? I've also heard reports of lenses loosing correct infinity focus when used with an adaptor - this would really bug me as with a nikon manual focus lens on a nikon body you always get a "true" infinity stop on the lens. Also there is the possible issue with battery drain as an OVF does not require powering and I don't want to have to keep switching an EVF on and off all the time.
Click to expand...

Someone's feeding you nonsense :D

I'm sure that EVF lag will be stated in the specifications somewhere but whatever it is in real world use it just isn't an issue IMVHO and based on my use of my Panasonic G1, GX7 and Sony A7.

As for manual focusing without the use of focus aids, the first question is why wouldn't you use focus aids? The next question is which modern DSLR allows easier manual focus than a CSC? The modern DSLR's I've owned 300D, 10D, 20D and 5D were all pretty much hopeless to use for manual focus unless the subject was big and clear in the frame as you don't get any manual focus aids on modern DSLR's fitted with standard made for the cameras AF focus screens. Using a CSC to manual focus without using a focus aid is therefore probably about the same as using a modern DSLR to manual focus as it's just down to your own eyesight looking at the scene but once you use a manual focus aid CSC's are a quantum leap ahead of a modern DSLR IMVHO and enable very precise focus. Once you call up the magnified view it's like being able to macro focus. Peaking is good too when you need to be faster.

I've had no issues with manual lenses loosing infinity focus when used with an adapter. Using just about any lens ever made is one of the strength of CSC's and I can only imagine that using the wrong adapter is the cause of whatever problems you've heard of. Surely you'd only loose infinity if the registration distance wasn't correct?
 
Noc said:
My mind is made up regarding sensor size. I am going with APS-C.

What I'm a little embarrassed to admit is that despite all my reading (both here, and books I own) I was not aware of mirrorless cameras. Am I correct to assume mirrorless are just as functional and capable as an SLR, but that instead of previewing one's photo through a viewfinder one views it on a screen? As the sensor 'sees' it?

Gosh, I didn't expect such a response. Although I understand the vast majority of all the advice, terms, and numbers, I'm at a loss at which make and model camera to purchase, and whether to go for contemporary or vintage lenses. Something about the Pentax K3 seems appealing though, as it seems a bit of a quirky and overlooked oddity. In other areas of my life I've found overlooked oddities are often the richest gems.

But anyway, thank you for all your input. I'm going to compile a list of camera bodies from this thread and thoroughly research each one.
Click to expand...
Mirrorless cameras have existed for ages, because the term 'mirrorless' is too general, only ruling out cameras with a reflex mirror. So an iPhone you may already own is technically, a mirrorless camera.

Even mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras (from now on, MILCs) have existed long before digital was ever thought of. Those were rangefinder cameras in the film days, with an optical viewfinder that wasn't producing a through-the-lens (TTL) view. Leica keeps making those with digital imaging sensors and somewhat modern digital features, and Fujifilm incorporates such viewfinder in some of their models, in addition to an electronic one. Very clever implementation, in my opinion.

But all the talk about 'mirrorless' today revolves around a type of camera that was launched back in 2008 - an interchangeable-lens digital camera with no reflex mirror. They all have LCD screens which give a Live View sensor-readout, but so do DSLRs - so what's the point then?

Well, digital MILCs are smaller than digital SLRs, just like rangefinder cameras were smaller than SLRs. Without the mirror box, they can be smaller, lighter, and have a shorter flange distance (the distance from the imaging sensor to the lens mount) which allows for smaller lenses (and also allows the use of adapters to mount lenses of many different mounts). Some of them have an electronic viewfinder, either protruding upwards like an SLR (and DSLR, of course) or off to the corner like rangefinder cameras, which gives the benefits of Live View to eye-level (which helps stabilize the camera while handholding). Those benefits are mainly a preview of how the image will look like, as well as valuable information shown while shooting, like a histogram or clipping warnings, that can only be shown in playback with DSLRs. There are also several features that assist with manual focus, like focus peaking and magnification, which makes adapting legacy lenses more practical.

Of course, DSLRs' optical viewfinders have advantages over the electronic ones. With an optical viewfinder, you literally see with your own eye, thus no lag will ever be visible. [I use an Olympus MILC and don't notice any lag or other issues with its EVF.] DSLRs also have a dedicated sensor for autofocus when using the optical viewfinder, which makes tracking autofocus far better than most MILCs (but they're improving - not so long ago, entry-level DSLRs were better than flagship MILCs in this regard, but it isn't quite the case anymore, not always at least; and when using Live View, pretty much all DSLRs are slower than MILCs).

Pick and choose - what do you want to shoot? If it's sports or wildlife you're interested in, you probably shouldn't get a MILC just yet - a DSLR like the Pentax K-3, Nikon D7100 or Canon EOS 70D would fare quite a lot better. If you're not going to do that often, you might as well go with a MILC and spare yourself from carrying hefty DSLR equipment.
 
If you're thinking about a long term interest in photography were you want room to grow, it's worth considering which camera system is likely to give you the best options (for you) going forward.

Go and handle some different cameras, see what feels comfortable for you, see which menu systems and controls make more sense/feel most intuitive to you.

In my opinion, both electronic viewfinders and optical viewfinders have advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation.

When shooting in low light, I prefer to use an optical viewfinder and dislike the backlighting glow that occurs with EVF displays. In bright light, again I prefer optical as the EVFs are more difficult for me to see well. I also find that by using an optical viewfinder, the camera is held with better stability. With EVFs the camera is by definition held further away from your body (in my case quite a distance unless I have my reading glasses on) so is less stable. Image stabilisation will help of course, but isn't a cure. The reading glasses thing is rarely mentioned in these discussions. I don't need glasses when out and about, so having to put reading glasses on to take photographs would be a pain. Optical viewfinders usually have diopter adjustment for the focussing screen, so for me no glasses needed..

With the camera on a tripod or in situations where live view (zoomed in) focusing is needed or for high/low angle or for video, then EVFs are great. For example the swivelling display on my Canon G12 is very handy indeed.

As for an equipment recommendation, I think you could do a lot worse than a Canon 70D, 18-135mm STM, 50mm f/1.8mm and 10-22mm plus a decent tripod. This would probably fit your budget too..

Good luck..
 
GeeJay57 said:
When shooting in low light, I prefer to use an optical viewfinder and dislike the backlighting glow that occurs with EVF displays. In bright light, again I prefer optical as the EVFs are more difficult for me to see well. I also find that by using an optical viewfinder, the camera is held with better stability. With EVFs the camera is by definition held further away from your body (in my case quite a distance unless I have my reading glasses on) so is less stable.
Click to expand...
Confusion of EVF (where you hold the camera to your eye as with an optical VF) with rear screen viewing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top