Need advice Lenses, DSLR, Bridge

P

pirespt

Messages
104
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone

Lately I've been quite busy so not much chance to take pictures, however that is soon to change and I've been toying with the idea of buying a new camera, currently I have:

Kodak Z740 5mp
Fuji XP10

The Fuji is brand new and I just took a few photos mainly I bought it for its underwater capabilities and it is small to slip in the pocket for situations where the Kodak is just too big. Image quality is ok ish but fine for its purpose.

My idea is to replace my Kodak and this is where I'm at.

Bridge, Fuji HS10, Panny FZ38 or the new FZ100 or Canon SX 20 IS. They are all great cameras but I know that I'll be having that "what if" feeling in relation to the DSLR.

Now the DSLR, I like zoom and I want to be able to take pictures straight after I buy it and not be thinking about buying another lens straight away. I saw some deals with twin lenses kits, i.e. Pentax Kx, Cannon 450D/1000D or Nikon D3000 or D5000. I wonder if there is a lens that we can call all around or jack of all trades one that I could buy on its own and buy the body on its own as well. I am thinking that at a later stage a nifty fifty could be a good option. I want to avoid at least to start with, the bulk of having the body plus 2/3 lens to carry around when on holidays that can turn out to be a pain.

So to summarize

Bridge or DSLR

Kit lens or Twin Kit or an all around lens if that exists.

Thanks in advance for all your help.
 
A bridge camera is just a glorified compact. It can never be much good for serious creative photography because the sensor is so small and depth of field is correspondingly always high. You just cannot get shallow depth of field effects, and that is completely aside from image quality and other issues. It is the physical size of the sensor that fundamentally defines the type of camera, depsite what some might claim, and a bridge camera is not really a bridge to anywhere.

The closest you will get to what you want is a DSLR with an 18-200mm-ish super-zoom. Or one of the new MILC cameras (Mirrorless interchangeable lens camera) like the Panasonic GF1. But the flipside of that is you'll never get one of those in your pocket, not with a decent zoom on it.
 
The depth of field would be an issue for me with the bridge. I love those portraits with the blurred background and that's what i'll probably be doing first.

So being the DSLR, size is something that I'm comfortable with, for pocket size I have the Fuji.

So an all round lens is a 18-200mm?
 
Last edited:
I was in the same situation as yourself and everybody advised me to skip the bridge camera and go straight for the DSLR as I would end up with one anyway. So i ignored the advice and bought an Olympus bridge camera with a 12 times zoom. Pictures weren't really a great improvement over the point and shoot, but when Sony brought one out with an 18 times zoom I upgraded, but of course it didn't help the image quality. So I decided that the only way forward was the DSLR. I bought a secondhand Canon 40D and an 18-200mm IS zoom, the results were in a different league than the bridge. No more shutter lag and 6.5 frames per second, minimum noise at higher ISO and a camera that moulded into my hand. Should have listened to the advice I was given and saved the money wasted on the bridge cameras. I have since bought lots of lenses to go with it, but my trusty 18-200mm IS stays on the camera most of the time. It is a great lens for a 10mp camera, but the optical quality of the lens is not so good for cameras of 15mp or above.
So yes you can have a useful zoom lens on a DSLR as long as the camera isn't so good that it shows up the flaws in the lens.
 
I disagree that it is not possible to be a creative photographer with a compact or bridge camera. There are compacts like the Panasonic LX3 and Leica D-Lux 4, and many others for all I know, where a shallow DOF are still achievable. It saves carrying something the weight of a housebrick round too.

showphoto.php
[/url][/IMG]
 
waspjunior said:
I disagree that it is not possible to be a creative photographer with a compact or bridge camera. There are compacts like the Panasonic LX3 and Leica D-Lux 4, and many others for all I know, where a shallow DOF are still achievable. It saves carrying something the weight of a housebrick round too.

showphoto.php
[/url][/IMG]
Click to expand...

That's a close up.

Depth of field on a (human) portrait, taken at 2m distance, at f/2.8:
Canon crop format, 50mm focal length, DoF = 17cm
Pano LX3, 10mm focal length, DoF = 152cm
 
Hoppy, you've said this before and you are still wrong to write off the LX range as not capable of shallow DoF, at least to a degree.

An LX will not give you the same DoF as APS-C but you can still get shallow DoF. I have an LX2 and I can get shallow DoF with it so with an LX3 it should be easier as it has a wider aperture.

What you have to do is zoom in and select the widest aperture that you can and get your subject away from the background if possible. Zooming in in itself doesn't give you shallow DoF as DoF does not depend on focal length but what it does do is make the out of focus areas look larger and thus creates the effect of shallow dof, a smaller image will look sharper so that's what you need to avoid.

Here's a guy who does it a little differently...

http://oldnewdream.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/aperture-depth-of-field/
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Hoppy, you've said this before and you are still wrong to write off the LX range as not capable of shallow DoF, at least to a degree.

An LX will not give you the same DoF as APS-C but you can still get shallow DoF. I have an LX2 and I can get shallow DoF with it so with an LX3 it should be easier as it has a wider aperture.

What you have to do is zoom in and select the widest aperture that you can and get your subject away from the background if possible. Zooming in in itself doesn't give you shallow DoF as DoF does not depend on focal length but what it does do is make the out of focus areas look larger and thus creates the effect of shallow dof, a smaller image will look sharper so that's what you need to avoid.

Here's a guy who does it a little differently...

http://oldnewdream.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/aperture-depth-of-field/
Click to expand...

Well you can put forward an extreme case if you want, but it's a very long way from representative. The figures say different, and so do the images. In the example of a typical portrait that I quoted above (at the same f/number, taken at the same distance and approximately similar framing) the compact has almost ten times more depth of field than a crop format DSLR :eek:

Shallow DoF effects with a compact are just not a practical reality - even one with an f/2 lens (of which I think there are only about three models in existance).
 
pirespt said:
Thanks guys but I think that I'm pending more to the DSLR side, now I need to learn about lenses.
Click to expand...

You will get lots of different advice on lenses. Obviously the Canon L series are generally the ones that give the best optical quality, but there are also a lot of third party lenses that give superb results. I would suggest that you start with the 18-200mm IS unless you are going for a 15mp camera or higher. Then you can decide which type of photography you prefer and take your time in purchasing some better glass to suit it. You can always resell your 18-200mm if you find that you are not using it much. It won't lose a lot in value. If you want an additional lens for a shallow dof then the canon 50mm f1.8 (nifty fifty) is great value at around £75.

Good luck!
 
Tamron kind of rule the "one lens does all" range, there's a choice between the 18-270mm or the 28-300mm on a canon 450 or 500 that will give you the equivalent of 29mm - 432 or 45mm - 480mm Both lenses have optical stabilisation.

The 500D is a cracking camera, Just got one myself, Cameraworld where cheapest at the time doing it for £469 for the body.

They are also doing it as a twin lens kit with the 18-55 IS and 55-250IS for £779 at present which is a pretty good deal as the Tamron and body would work out around £100 more.
 
Last edited:
Yeah but that defies the purpose of an all round lens.

I saw a 500d on RGB for £445 that sounded good. But after seeing the price of the lens I think i'll have go for a 450d or a 1000d I can't afford £800 on a camera and lens.
 
a good bridge camera is going to cost abot 250 - 350 , if that about your budget , then go for a bridge camera i would recomend the panny fz38 personally, i have heard good things about the hs10 as well.

but if you can strecth to it go dslr the difference is that they are more versatile , but can become very expensive. (lenses , acessories)

dlsr would be my choice but that my opinion.

Cheers Steve
 
Last edited:
No such thing as one lens for all situations, there are hyperzooms out there, but theses are jack of all trades master of none. (Holiday snap lenses)

It depends how serious you want to get into photography, but if your budget is closer to £500 than £800, then I would suggest going 2nd hand, you get more for your $$$, that's if your serious about buying a DSLR.

Otherwise if you just want a camera for holiday snaps, then buy a decent bridge camera. Fuji, Panasonic, Sony, Canon all offer good bridget camera's.
 
pirespt said:
I'm certain on a DSLR and now I'm almost certain on a superzoom to start with, nor sure which though, sigma and tamrom are half the price of a canon lens.
Click to expand...

I'd get the Canon 18-200 without any doubt. It's the least compromised of these generally compromed lenses. Plus, and this is a big plus, you can use Canon's DPP (free) software.

If you shoot Raw, there is a lens aberration correction suite in DPP which know what Canon lens you've used, at what focal length and f/numnber, and in one mouse click applies custom corrections for chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting - the three primary optical shortcomings.

Here's a good review of that lens, plus a demo of what DPP can do to really enhance the final image :thumbs: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-200_3p5-5p6_is_c16/page3.asp
 
So far I've read good reviews that classify the 18-200mm as a good holiday lens and that is my primary objective.

Then I might buy a nifty fifty.

I'm serious about buying a DSLR but not so serious about buying a bag of lenses to start with. So I think I'll stick with a 1000d or a 450D or the nikon equivalent and buy a 18-200mm

Between the 18-200mm which one would be better the sigma or the tamron?
 
pirespt said:
So far I've read good reviews that classify the 18-200mm as a good holiday lens and that is my primary objective.

Then I might buy a nifty fifty.

I'm serious about buying a DSLR but not so serious about buying a bag of lenses to start with. So I think I'll stick with a 1000d or a 450D or the nikon equivalent and buy a 18-200mm

Between the 18-200mm which one would be better the sigma or the tamron?
Click to expand...

Don't. Canon or Nikon. Canon 450D with 18-200 would be my choice, for the reasons given. Miles better than anything else with DPP.

There are reviews of most of these lenses on DPReview, as I linked above.
 
pirespt said:
What's the deal with the 15mp, I was actually considering the 500d now that its price has come down.
Click to expand...

No large range zoom lens is perfect. The Canon 18-200mm was introduced as a companion to the 50D, but the 15mp of the 50D shows up the flaws in the lens, albeit not a problem for the amatuer photographer. Most reviews of this lens are with it fitted to a 50D so there are a lot of adverse critiscism. However I came across a couple of reviews using 10mp cameras with the 18-200mm and they both said that the results were very good in comparison to the 50D. Hence the comment about the 15mp.

I would suggest that you consider buying secondhand, you should be able to get a real good one for under £300.
 
Last edited:
pirespt said:
Second hand Camera or second hand lens?

How do I know if a lens is ok, for all I know as long as it looks ok cosmetically everything is fine, but I'm a newbie with lots to learn.
Click to expand...

Buy both secondhand with confidence :thumbs: Sure you're new, so something you perhaps won't know is that one of the best things about this site is the For Sale/Wanted section.

Never say never, but I've never had a bad experience in over 30 sales and purchases from fellow members. I think most others would say the same. Trust, immediately payment, prompt dispatch of goods is the norm here. Or at least, that is my experience.

Expect to pay about 2/3rds on the cost of a new lens, boxed and in mint condition. For a camera, you'll pay less than that as a lot of folks upgrade for no good reason (we're all human :D ) and superceded models generally go for half their new cost just a couple or three years previously. Most amateur equipment is relatively lightly used and carefully looked after.

And when the time comes for you to sell/upgrade, this is the place. If you buy sensibly, quality branded stuff, you'll sell on without losing a penny, and with popular equipment it will go very promptly. I've never had to wait more than a few days to sell anything, and some stuff has gone within minutes - one item actually sold within seconds would you believe (note to self, put your prices up :D ). I'm not joking - I was editing a typo in the ad and it sold while I was doing it!
 
I've looked on the sales section many times now but I feel a bit odd about buying a 2nd hand camera not knowing what I'll find.

I think I'll start with a budget and see where it takes me.

I saw some models that are about two three years old, i.e. 40d, 400d should I be looking at more recent stuff, or those will be fine choices?
 
My 40D is 3 years old and is in excellent condition. It has a shutter count of less than 10,000 so it has plenty of life left in it and it has more than enough features for me to play with. My son's 400D is about the same age with an even lower shutter count. Most of these cameras have been used by enthusiasts and not proffesionals so they have had relatively little use.
 
I went through a few cameras as everyone and his dog on here will testify to before i settled on a 'keeper'. DSLR can't be beaten as far as i am concerned. And for me, it has to be Canon. I love the user controls!
 
pirespt said:
I've looked on the sales section many times now but I feel a bit odd about buying a 2nd hand camera not knowing what I'll find.

I think I'll start with a budget and see where it takes me.

I saw some models that are about two three years old, i.e. 40d, 400d should I be looking at more recent stuff, or those will be fine choices?
Click to expand...

Have a look at the prices here http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat1.html I've always thought the 450D and 40D were something of a high point in Canon's recent past, in terms of performance and value. Not sure the current models improve very much on them in terms of final output. I see you can still get a 450D new.

But they're very different cameras to use, 40D is a much bigger and heavier semi-pro jobbie. You also need to get your hands on a Canon 18-200, it's quite a lump. Bear in mind that you're karting around a 200mm lens all the time, even though you're probably mainly shooting at 30-40mm.
 
Depends how big the front glass is and whether your talking about a prime or zoom. Canon EF 200mm f2.0 L IS USM Lens is 128 x 208mm weighs 2520g and is £4000, or Canon EF 200mm f2.8 L USM MKII Lens is 83.2x136.2mm, weighs 765g and is £600. Then there's the 70-200mm f4 or f2.8 (£500-£2000) or 3rd party options. Or something like the 55-250mm EF-S or 55-200mm or 28-200mm lenses (weight 400 - 700g) at the budget end ranging from £170-350
 
Last edited:
The 18-200mm is only 78.6 x 102mm and weighs just 595g.
 
I am sure I saw a 40D and a sigma 18-200 in the classifieds recently, I just searched and can't find it, maybe it was on another forum.
 
Strangways said:
The 18-200mm is only 78.6 x 102mm and weighs just 595g.
Click to expand...

But is almost twice that length when zoomed to 200mm.

For comparison of the weight, the 55-250 only weighs 390g, so the 18-200 is relatively heavy with all that glass in it.
 
HoppyUK said:
But is almost twice that length when zoomed to 200mm.

For comparison of the weight, the 55-250 only weighs 390g, so the 18-200 is relatively heavy with all that glass in it.
Click to expand...

Yes it is heavier than the 55-250, but he was keen on the idea of a single lens rather than carrying a bag of lenses.
 
I would love an 18-200mm. Too pricey for me at the mo and my wife would cut off my child benefit if i said i wanted one.
 
Last edited:
They can be found for around £350 maybe less used but I have yet to see one on the sales section.

I saw today a great deal on a 1000d £286 new with a canon bag from Tesco. Just need to find my pennies.

Is there much difference between the 400d and the 1000d?
 
1000D is a nice camera. I should know as i have had 2!! Didn't get the chance to try them properly though.

Thing is, that price is for body only, plus a camera shop near me is doing them for almost the same price with a free 2gig card and bag.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top