New kit on a budget.

cebrooker

cebrooker

Messages
16
Name
Charles
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all, I am a new member but have owned my 100D for about 3 years, taking photographs seriously for about 9 months. I am beginning to think about upgrading my camera but have a couple of issues that are annoying me and was wondering if anyone could help.

Is spending £600ish on a 5D Mkii a silly idea? It would appear that it would give me a lot more customisation that I would like or would it be wasted given that I only really use my 40mm F2.8 pancake and would investing in better lenses a better idea?

I also like the idea of getting some "vintage lenses" Could someone give me the basics into what I need to look at? It seems a bit of a minefield!

I bought a stupid tripod and need to replace it money is tight is the Q-666C a good bet or not?

Thanks for your help, I'm working on some panel images for our camera club's annual exhibition and look forward to getting them to a state when they can be shown on the forum.
 
Why do you want to upgrade? What do you mean by "customisation". What would you want out of the upgrade?

It's the better camera for sure...
 
Vintage lenses can yield very nice results but the problem is getting them properly focused. You can buy adapters with focus confirmation chips from e.g. Fotodiox that adapt Leica, Zeiss, OM lenses etc to your Canon body. You would have to focus the lenses manually and stop down your aperture manually as well. It can be quite fun but it will force you to slow down, making it unsuitbale for subjects such as running kids etc.

I have used Leica R lenses on my 5DI/II but in the end decided to sell them and focus on getting the best AF lenses for the Canon system. If I was going to venture back in this space I would probably look to buy a Sony A7 because it offers "focus peaking" in the EVF which allows you to see very clearly where the focus falls.

Focusing manual wide angle lenses such as the 21mm focal length is a lot easier than mid range and telephoto lenses due to the wide depth of field.

If I was in your situation, I would probably get some more lenses and a flash before spending more money on a body.
 
In my opinion vintage lenses and assuming you mean film era manual lenses aren't the way to go if you're using a conventional DSLR as they're just not built for manual focus. In my opinion mirrorless cameras are the way to go if you're interested in either old lenses or manual photography or both.

Although I've never used a 5DII (I had the original 5D) I'm sure it's a perfectly good camera but personally I'd choose mirrorless every single time for the smaller form factor and the fact that they make using old manual focus lenses a joy rather than the PITA it is with DSLR's as with mirrorless you can call up a greatly magnified view which makes focusing accurately much easier and you get lovely things such as focus peaking and an in view histogram. Using old manual lenses on my FF Sony A7 is simply wonderful.

If you're sticking with Canon DSLR's and would like to try vintage lenses one relatively cheap system is Olympus Zuiko. The lenses are small and they'll fit to a Canon with a £5 adapter, adapters with focus confirmation are only a bit more expensive but I don't know how accurate they are as the one I had didn't work at all. Manually focusing accurately with a DSLR isn't easy though unless the subject it big in the frame and the detail is easy to see.

My advice is that if you want to use old lenses ditch the Canon and get a Sony A7 and some Minolta Rokkors :D Assuming you have the time to manually focus very good accuracy is possible and the results will stand up to pixel peeping :D
 
Last edited:
If you go for a 5Dmk2 the first thing you will notice is the weight, your 100D is around 400grms, the 5D is close on 1600 grms, the second thing is that the field of view with your 40mm lens will appear to be a lot wider on the 5D .You will be going from a 1.6 crop to a FF , your 40mm is giving you the same field of view as 64mm ( 40*1.6) lens on FF.
At this stage you have not got a lot invested in camera and glass so if you change to something else /Sony/ Fuji its not like you have a lot of expensive glass.
You are in a camera club so you should have the opportunity to handle lots of different cameras before you decide.
I have a 5Dmk2 and some specialist Canon lenses, TS-E and Fisheye, I sold the bulk of my Canon glass and bought a Fuji XT-1 with an 18-135, simply to reduce the weight,the Canon rarely sees the light of day basically because its too heavy to cart round on a regular basis.The only reason I kept it was because the camera was not worth a lot and I can't get a TS-E lens for a Fuji.
Play with lots of cameras before you jump
 
Last edited:
troutfisher said:
If you go for a 5Dmk2 the first thing you will notice is the weight, your 100D is around 400grms, the 5D is close on 1600 grms, the second thing is that the field of view with your 40mm lens will appear to be a lot wider on the 5D .You will be going from a 1.6 crop to a FF , your 40mm is giving you the same field of view as 64mm ( 40*1.6) lens on FF.
At this stage you have not got a lot invested in camera and glass so if you change to something else /Sony/ Fuji its not like you have a lot of expensive glass.
You are in a camera club so you should have the opportunity to handle lots of different cameras before you decide.
I have a 5Dmk2 and some specialist Canon lenses, TS-E and Fisheye, I sold the bulk of my Canon glass and bought a Fuji XT-1 with an 18-135, simply to reduce the weight,the Canon rarely sees the light of day basically because its too heavy to cart round on a regular basis.The only reason I kept it was because the camera was not worth a lot and I can't get a TS-E lens for a Fuji.
Play with lots of cameras before you jump
Click to expand...

The 5d2 is nowhere near as heavy as that, in fact it's half that at 810 grams!
 
sorry about that, I missread the figure, its still heavy though
 
Yeah, there aren't any Canon DSLRs topping 1.6kg, even the 1dx (I think Canon's heaviest) tops at 1.3kg, but that's by the by.

Maybe it's me, but I'm not bothered by the few extra grams of the dslr (mind you I use a 6d as my main camera which is probably the lightest FF dslr you can get, only 260gr more than the A7, the additional weight is the same as a good sized bar of chocolate!). As soon as you put a decent lens on say, the A7, it feels just as heavy in the bag [emoji52]
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Yeah, there aren't any Canon DSLRs topping 1.6kg, even the 1dx (I think Canon's heaviest) tops at 1.3kg, but that's by the by.

Maybe it's me, but I'm not bothered by the few extra grams of the dslr (mind you I use a 6d as my main camera which is probably the lightest FF dslr you can get, only 260gr more than the A7, the additional weight is the same as a good sized bar of chocolate!). As soon as you put a decent lens on say, the A7, it feels just as heavy in the bag [emoji52]
Click to expand...

Then there's something wrong with your senses. The A7 body is smaller and lighter and as a package the Sony will always be smaller and lighter if only for that one fact unless you put an unusually large and heavy lens on the Sony and a titchy one on the Canon. Maybe the weight of your bag is the factor and swamping the weight of the kit inside.
 
woof woof said:
Then there's something wrong with your senses. The A7 body is smaller and lighter and as a package the Sony will always be smaller and lighter if only for that one fact unless you put an unusually large and heavy lens on the Sony and a titchy one on the Canon. Maybe the weight of your bag is the factor and swamping the weight of the kit inside.
Click to expand...

Nope, nothing wrong my my senses (unless small amounts of weight just don't register with me [emoji38][emoji38])!

Add the equivalent of a 24-105 f/4 and there's barely anything noticeable in it (in my limited handling of it). In fact the nearest equivalent FE lens is the much, much more expensive 28-135 f/4 at a whacking 1.3kg! The FE 24-70 is lighter by 200grms then you loose 35mm...

Even with a prime, the Sony FE 50mm f/1.8 is over 180 grams and the new Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM is 160 grams and nearly a third of the price (U.K. Prices) and just as good optically.

As I say, there's only just over 220 grams body difference to a full frame Canon 6d - a decent sized chocolate bar. There's not much difference in the lenses, go longer and faster and your level pegging.
 
Last edited:
BacktotheFuji said:
I'd much rather have the mirrorless camera and also keep an emergency bar of chocolate hanging round my neck :D
Click to expand...

I'm not dissing mirrorless or trying to create a mirrorless vs DSLR (one has a mirror, one doesn't, who gives a turd!!), I have mirrorless cameras as well as cameras with mirrors in them. It's the overstated weight issue I have issues with. With a decent lens, it's really horses for courses.

And I love chocolate.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I'm not dissing mirrorless or trying to create a mirrorless vs DSLR (one has a mirror, one doesn't, who gives a turd!!), I have mirrorless cameras as well as cameras with mirrors in them. It's the overstated weight issue I have issues with. With a decent lens, it's really horses for courses.

And I love chocolate.
Click to expand...

Me either, but I also love chocolate! :D
 
odd jim said:
There's not much difference in the lenses, go longer and faster and your level pegging.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can pick lenses which make mirrorless cameras bigger and heavier than DSLR's but it's misleading to do so.

odd jim said:
It's the overstated weight issue I have issues with.
Click to expand...
You clearly have a problem with it as you keep saying this in multiple threads. Fact is CSC's are in general smaller and lighter. Live with that fact :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I'm sure you can pick lenses which make mirrorless cameras bigger and heavier than DSLR's but it's misleading to do so.


You clearly have a problem with it as you keep saying this in multiple threads. Fact is CSC's are in general smaller and lighter. Live with that fact :D
Click to expand...

I've never disputed that. If you read my threads, not even carefully, you'll see what I'm saying is the small amount of weight you save in the body (compared to say a 6d) you loose on the lens, and in the bag it *feels* just as heavy! Also, there are no weight gains saved on most native FE lenses, where the *equivalent* on an FE mount is actually heavier. My example above, if I wanted the equivalent of my Canon 6d with the 24-105 f/4L it would weigh in at nearly 2kg with an a7 and FE mount equivalent. This isn't misleading, it's a direct like for like comparison, hence why I used it as an example.

As I've already said, I have no problem with mirrorless (I have mirrorless systems too!), the advantages about size and weight don't really hold water with me for the above reasons - put a mid, constant aperture zoom on it (let's not mention anything longer), whack it in a bag with a couple of other items and / or lenses, and it feels the same as the equivalent DSLR and lenses / accessories to me. If you want a significantly lighter system, get a Sony RX100. I have one of those too [emoji3]

The Olympus system is probably the best example of weight reduction, but then you're going from full frame to a much much smaller micro 4/3 system, so you'd expect that.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your comments. I set up my account on a friend's laptop and was confused when I tried to get into photography talk! My wife just booked a holiday and decided she would buy my 100D from me and I found an ABSOLUTE STEEL of a 5D MKii (13k shots for £599) and am picking up a 17-40mm F4 L lens from a friend. I also picked up a couple of Takumar lenses which have been good fun to play with.
 
It is possible to gain focus peaking on the Canon 5D2 using Magic Lantern. This program is free and sits on the compact flash card. Whilst designed primarily to enhance movie capability on the camera, focus peaking works for stills too. I'm loving my 5D2 even more since fitting some decent glass, a Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 VC. It's a great camera for shallow depth of field portraits even now, although cameras (and especially prices) have moved on. I do shoot quite a lot with mirrorless as well, with a Lumix GH3 and just purchased Olympus OMD EM1, with native lenses and Olympus manual OM lenses. Both great cameras but less useful for shallow depth of field or ultra wide angle shots without stitching compared to my Canon.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc1y-J_Wdjk
 
Firstly I would get a much sturdier tripod. Whilst that "Q-666C" looks great on paper it is cheap for a reason, plus it is a lightweight travel tripod so rigidity will be compromised. Even the top of the range travel tripods, costing many hundreds of pounds, are still a compromise. Unless you are wanting the tripod specifically for travel then get something bigger and better.

Some posters seem to have problems using MF lenses on DSLR cameras - I am baffled as to why? I never had any issues using Live View to manually focus on my Canon cameras with old MF lenses.

Regarding "Vintage" lenses then there is some very useful information here:

http://www.pebbleplace.com/databases/contax_database.html

http://www.pebbleplace.com/databases/leica_database.html

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html

The main thing to look out for is the register distance (measured between the lens mount and the film/sensor) of the camera that the lens is designed for and in the SLR world Canon is one of, if not, the shortest. There are a wide range of lenses that you can use via cheap adapters. I prefer the ones without an AF confirm chip. I found them not to be very precise.

Happy hunting!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top