Switch from Sigma?

paulcamcas

paulcamcas

Messages
2,509
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
I've put my Sigma SD10 + twin zooms + 50mm f1.4 + flash on ebay and want to change to something more mainstream.

Here's what I'm looking for:
1. Using mainly for lifestyle portraiture.
2. Fast focus kids, dogs etc.
3. V good glass. Sorry to be corny but the oof is very important to me.
4. Raw processing via Aperture 3.
5. Low-light capability would be nice.
6. No in-camera frippery required or video - I just like AP and M.
7. I don't need gaziillions of pixels or FPS. I'm much more interested in the IQ than the pixel count.
8. I don't need the latest thing and I'm more than happy to buy used.

Cameras that have tempted me have been Nikon D90 (head speaking) and Olympus E-3 (heart speaking). Whenever I've handled both Nikon and Canon the Nikon always seems to work better in my hand - don't know why.

I've also looked at the Nikon D700 and loved it but don't think I need to spend that much to get something that will work much better for me than the SD10.

I'd happily consider a cheap body that will do the job and allow me to afford two good lenses rather than one. I'd also put any savings into some training which I sorely need :-)

Any advice would be much appreciated.
 
Paul, looking at used a good Nikon to suit you would be a D300; pro-spec build and image quality, plus no video bells and whistles - just solid performance in AV, TV, M and P modes. Minters are going for £650(ish).

It'll use all Nikon Glass because of the body motor, so older D-type lenses can be used. Of course, budget constraints will dictate what glass you will buy but there are loads of options.

Good option might be 17-55 f/2.8 as a general walkabout, teamed up with something like 70/80-200mm f/2.8.

The older 80-20mm f/2.8 AF-D is a greta lens optically and fast to focus, although the newer 70-200mm VR is faster but probably about 30% more expensive (£1000 compared to £600 for the AF-D).

Nikon does some good primes like fifty, 85mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 versions, plus some 28mm and 35mm lenses.

They also produce arguably the best flashguns around.

Don't know anything about olympus stuff so can't comment on what's on offer from that camp :)
 
Last edited:
Hi Pat. Firstly, checked out your flickr - wow! Fantastic photography. I'm in awe!

Secondly, D300 plus 17-55 is a great suggestion that hadn't occurred to me.

Grays of Westminster have that combo in stock in mint- condition (under 3k actuations) for £1,720 (body = £925, lens = £795). More than I'd expect to pay on ebay but maybe worth it for the peace of mind? What do you think? Are Grays good people to buy from?
 
Cheers - haven't updated it for ages but that's really nice of you to say :)

Grays is pricey but it's a Nikon Mecca and by all accounts, as cosher as a shop can get. Might be some room for manouvering on the price, maybe...


Dogfish_magnet said:
Have a look at MPB - D300 only £779
Click to expand...

Second thast - use MPB a lot and they're great for choice and service
 
Last edited:
Hi Paul, we've been there too: SD10 then SD14 then mainstream. I went D300 + 16-85mm and am very pleased, Hubby went 50D + 17-55 f/2.8 and he is also pleased. Personally I cannot get my head round the way that the Canon operates, Nikon is just so intuitive for me but there are times I would love to put Canon lenses on my Nikon. 70-200 f/4, 400 f/5.6 etc. I would look first at what lenses you will want to use and if that does not sway you then go with what feels best.
 
Hi Paul, I got the oly e3, great camera and great glass to go with it, at present you can pick up for £599 at PC world.(some stores still have stocks)
 
kherb said:
Hi Paul, I got the oly e3, great camera and great glass to go with it, at present you can pick up for £599 at PC world.(some stores still have stocks)
Click to expand...

£599 seems to be a bit of a bargain! PC World don't seem to list it on their website, I'll give them a call. Do you mind me asking what you particularly like about your E3? What glass do you recommend?
 
Last edited:
My dad does that, he still calls his ISO rating, ASA. ;)
 
I don't have an E3 but use some of the four thirds lenses on my Panasonic DMC-L1

I have several lenses which include, 35mm Macro, 14-50 f2.8-f3.5 Leica Elmarit, the teeny tiny 25mm f2.8 compact lens and the 40-150 an underrated lens which is very useful.

The Leica Elmarit is amazing the pictures are crisp and so clear and the 35mm is great to use for portraiture as it gives good DOF to the image.

There are far nicer lenses in the more professional range and I'd love to get a 9-18 wide angle lens for those landscapes.

Olympus wise if you're looking to buy second hand there are two forums which have sales boards, they are;

http://e-group.uk.net/ and http://fourthirds-user.com/

If you ask the users on the e-group forum in particular which lenses to look for they'd be far better at recommending them than me, they have far more experience than I have.

Only thing thats annoying me with the E-system is the af assist in low light with the flash strobing away! I much prefer the Pansonics more gentle IR system.

Although it can be got around by using a IR assist flash such as the FL-36 or FL-50.

I'm looking at either an E3 (which are short on the ground at the moment due to there being an expectant new camera at Septembers camera fair) or an E30 which apart from the weather proofing is alleged to be a much better all round camera.

I hope this helps a little

Regards

Pepper.
 
pepper said:
I
I hope this helps a little
Click to expand...

Helps a lot. Thanks Pepper and everyone else who has suggested. I think I'm going to give the Olympus E-30 a try. It seems very capable and good value. Please let me know if I'm making my usual schoolboy error :-)
 
paulcamcas said:
Helps a lot. Thanks Pepper and everyone else who has suggested. I think I'm going to give the Olympus E-30 a try. It seems very capable and good value. Please let me know if I'm making my usual schoolboy error :-)
Click to expand...

Are you aware that Olympus use the Four-Thirds format? It's quite a lot smaller than Nikon/Canon, and only one quarter the size of full frame.

If image quality is a priority, bigger is better.

PS I don't want to start a war with 4/3rds fans! :eek: I know there are upsides (though I can't think of any off-hand :D )
 
Upsides are the lighter and smaller cameras, (admittedly I'm not sure where that works with the E3 though). The zoom range on standard lenses is far better, and the Quality of the Zuiko D lenses is excellent!
 
HoppyUK said:
Are you aware that Olympus use the Four-Thirds format? It's quite a lot smaller than Nikon/Canon, and only one quarter the size of full frame.
Click to expand...

Aaargh! My head keeps reminding me of that but my heart is saying "Don't worry, it'll be all right." Damn stupid heart. This camera choosing ain't easy.

The advantages of the E-30 for me are:
Lower entry cost.
Lower cost but still good glass.

The main disadvantage seems to be lesser low light performance. Am I missing something important?
 
HoppyUK said:
Are you aware that Olympus use the Four-Thirds format? It's quite a lot smaller than Nikon/Canon, and only one quarter the size of full frame.

If image quality is a priority, bigger is better.

PS I don't want to start a war with 4/3rds fans! :eek: I know there are upsides (though I can't think of any off-hand :D )
Click to expand...

Isn't it half the size of full frame? It's a 2x crop factor. :thinking:

Don't think there is a real difference in IQ between 4/3 and APS-C apart from slightly worse high ISO performance.
 
Hi Paul, PC world in Merthyr have 1 e3 in stock @ £599. I just like olympus camerars, back from my OM days, my 1st DSLR was the E410 loved it but the E3 is a great bit of Kit. As for lenses I use the 12 - 60 SWD & 50 - 200 SWD, read reviews, Great glass.
 
grum said:
Isn't it half the size of full frame? It's a 2x crop factor. :thinking:

Don't think there is a real difference in IQ between 4/3 and APS-C apart from slightly worse high ISO performance.
Click to expand...

550px-Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside_svg.png
 
grum said:
Isn't it half the size of full frame? It's a 2x crop factor. :thinking:

Don't think there is a real difference in IQ between 4/3 and APS-C apart from slightly worse high ISO performance.
Click to expand...

Crop factor is a linear measurement. Area measurement is crop factor x crop factor, ie 2 x 2 = 4
 
Everybody's comment have been very helpful - thank you very much. I can't seem to make a reasoned choice between and E-3 and an E-30 so I'm going to try them both somehow before deciding. In the meantime, I've taken my Sigma kit off ebay and won't sell it until I've settled on a replacement. And I've booked in for some training. I think I need more skills more than I need new kit. :-)
 
Does anyone know if this would be a decent step up from my Sigma SD10 in useability and workflow?

There's a very nice one offered in the "for sale" section and while I've read the reviews and know it is less able than, say, the D300 that has been recommended here, it might knock spots of my SD10 and move me along a bit.

Any thoughts?
 
paulcamcas said:
Does anyone know if this would be a decent step up from my Sigma SD10 in useability and workflow?

There's a very nice one offered in the "for sale" section and while I've read the reviews and know it is less able than, say, the D300 that has been recommended here, it might knock spots of my SD10 and move me along a bit.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yes - no. I thought you wanted a step up in quality and something more mainstream? Not an esoteric step back in history :thinking:

Bite the bullet ;)
 
The Fujifilm forum at DPReview had a discussion recently about Sigma compared with the S5 Pro.
 
HoppyUK said:
Yes - no. I thought you wanted a step up in quality and something more mainstream? Not an esoteric step back in history :thinking:

Bite the bullet ;)
Click to expand...

:lol: I definitely want a step up in in performance and workflow. The end result from the SD is great but it takes a lot of faffing about to get there. And pretty slow AF to boot. I thought that the S5 would be a step up in performance as it is based on a D200 and the supposedly good OOC jpegs are tempting.

Also, even though it is not a mainstream camera, the lenses and flash will be - so it isn't quite the blind alley the Sigma cameras are.

On the other hand, I have a near infinite capacity for self-delusion so I am sure you are right and I should just bite the bullet.
 
paulcamcas said:
:lol: I definitely want a step up in in performance and workflow. The end result from the SD is great but it takes a lot of faffing about to get there. And pretty slow AF to boot. I thought that the S5 would be a step up in performance as it is based on a D200 and the supposedly good OOC jpegs are tempting.

Also, even though it is not a mainstream camera, the lenses and flash will be - so it isn't quite the blind alley the Sigma cameras are.

On the other hand, I have a near infinite capacity for self-delusion so I am sure you are right and I should just bite the bullet.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Fine camera in its day, but that day has passed. D300 is way better.
 
specialman said:
Paul, looking at used a good Nikon to suit you would be a D300; pro-spec build and image quality, plus no video bells and whistles - just solid performance in AV, TV, M and P modes. Minters are going for £650(ish).

It'll use all Nikon Glass because of the body motor, so older D-type lenses can be used. Of course, budget constraints will dictate what glass you will buy but there are loads of options.

Good option might be 17-55 f/2.8 as a general walkabout, teamed up with something like 70/80-200mm f/2.8.

The older 80-20mm f/2.8 AF-D is a greta lens optically and fast to focus, although the newer 70-200mm VR is faster but probably about 30% more expensive (£1000 compared to £600 for the AF-D).

Nikon does some good primes like fifty, 85mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 versions, plus some 28mm and 35mm lenses.

They also produce arguably the best flashguns around.

Don't know anything about olympus stuff so can't comment on what's on offer from that camp :)
Click to expand...

no tv on a nikon:lol: :cuckoo:
 
paulcamcas said:
I'd happily consider a cheap body that will do the job and allow me to afford two good lenses rather than one.
Click to expand...

Recent completed auctions on fleabay indicate that you could get an S5 and used ƒ/1.8 85mm for the price of a used D300.
 
Reviving this because I tried a Canon 50D, Nikon D300 and Nikon D90 in a helpful shop today. Much to my surprise, despite going in with a big prejudice towards Nikon, I liked the 50D very much indeed. It felt right in my hand in a way the Nikons just didn't.

I was thinking about getting the 50D with an EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM - a package the shop could do for around £1,500. Makes sense to me to spend the saving on the camera (over a D300) on a cracking lens. What do you think?
 
paulcamcas said:
Reviving this because I tried a Canon 50D, Nikon D300 and Nikon D90 in a helpful shop today. Much to my surprise, despite going in with a big prejudice towards Nikon, I liked the 50D very much indeed. It felt right in my hand in a way the Nikons just didn't.

I was thinking about getting the 50D with an EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM - a package the shop could do for around £1,500. Makes sense to me to spend the saving on the camera (over a D300) on a cracking lens. What do you think?
Click to expand...

Do you mean 24-70? Either way, 24/28-70 is designed for use as a very useful general purpose range on a full frame camera. If you use it on a cropper like the 50D, not only are you paying for sensor coverage that you cannot use, you are losing the wide-angle end. 24-28 is not at all wide on crop format and most people will miss that on walkabout.

EF-S 17-55 is the best choice for walkabout on crop format. Superb lens, f/2.8 plus it has IS.
 
HoppyUK said:
Do you mean 24-70? Either way, 24/28-70 is designed for use as a very useful general purpose range on a full frame camera. If you use it on a cropper like the 50D, not only are you paying for sensor coverage that you cannot use, you are losing the wide-angle end. 24-28 is not at all wide on crop format and most people will miss that on walkabout.

EF-S 17-55 is the best choice for walkabout on crop format. Superb lens, f/2.8 plus it has IS.
Click to expand...

17-55mm won't work on Full frame should OP upgrade in a year or two (most of us did it). Tokina 12-24mm can be added for £250 used to cover UWA region in a better way. 17-55mm @ 17mm is not all that wide and has more distortions than Tokina.

24-70mm has plenty of uses on crop.

17-55mm is like buying the most expensive tyres for a car soon to be sold away.
 
daugirdas said:
17-55mm won't work on Full frame should OP upgrade in a year or two (most of us did it). Tokina 12-24mm can be added for £250 used to cover UWA region in a better way. 17-55mm @ 17mm is not all that wide and has more distortions than Tokina.

24-70mm has plenty of uses on crop.

17-55mm is like buying the most expensive tyres for a car soon to be sold away.
Click to expand...

Most people never change to full frame. That's a fact. And I think it's wrong to assume that everyone should aspire to full frame, or to suggest that it is intrinsically better. There are advantages and disadvantages to both formats, but the overriding consideration is that full frame is very much more costly.

If you choose to use full frame lenses on a crop camera, they will work fine. However, you are not making the most of the optical benefits that the smaller format inherantly has, while at the same time you are paying for format coverage that you cannot use. (This only applies to shorter focal lengths, below about 50-60mm. Above that the optical benefits rapidly diminish, which is why Nikon/Canon etc don't make format-specific lenses of longer focal length - FX or EF only.)

While you're using full frame lenses on crop format, you are losing out on wide angle coverage. Then if you do move to full frame, your lenses behave completely differently and if you want to replicate the same angles of view, you will have to replace them anyway.

On the other hand, if you buy crop format lenses for a crop format camera, you will make the most of both aspects. And if you buy quality lenses like the EF-S 17-55, you can sell them on easily for very good money.

The cost of changing lenses is small compared to the cost of changing cameras, which always depreciate heavily. For example, when I changed to full frame I lost less money changing three lenses than I did on one body. If I had bought mint second-hand lenses in the first place, the lens swap would have probably cost me nothing at all.
 
Opps, sorry, I did mean 24-70mm.

Both inputs very interesting and I will think on them a bit. Might be sensible to start with just a 50mm f1.4 - which is my go to lens anyway - and find my way with the 50D from there.

The shop let me snap away onto my own card and I was able to take the same views of the exciting car park with my current setup too. I'll process them later on and see what's what.
 
I've had a good look at the 50D images now and I'm a bit surprised to find they don't seem to have much better IQ than those from the SD10. I probably did something wrong.

More resolution - yes.

More detail - a little but not as much as I expected.

Sharper - not that I could see.

Peeping at the 50D pixels showed better jaggies on diagonal edges.

50D seemed to be a tad too saturated but I guess that can be controlled in processing.

When printed out at A4 I couldn't see any real IQ difference.

Now I'm stumped.

Btw,the images were RAW. D50 processed in Aperture 3. SD10 in Sigma Photo Pro.
 
paulcamcas said:
I've had a good look at the 50D images now and I'm a bit surprised to find they don't seem to have much better IQ than those from the SD10. I probably did something wrong.

More resolution - yes.

More detail - a little but not as much as I expected.

Sharper - not that I could see.

Peeping at the 50D pixels showed better jaggies on diagonal edges.

50D seemed to be a tad too saturated but I guess that can be controlled in processing.

When printed out at A4 I couldn't see any real IQ difference.

Now I'm stumped.

Btw,the images were RAW. D50 processed in Aperture 3. SD10 in Sigma Photo Pro.
Click to expand...

So now you're looking for a big jump in image quality, whereas before it sounded more like you wanted a generally higher spec all round camera, with improvements in IQ and a step 'into the mainstream'. That's is a new Canon 50D or whatever, or Nikon D300. But the Sigma SD10 is not a bad camera at all, and most significanlty it has a similar and pretty good crop format sensor.

If you want to do all these things, plus get a big jump in image quality (that you don't have to pixel peep to see) then you want full frame. The sensor area is 2.5x larger, simple as. And you'll get more of that big bokeh you're after :)

While crop format cameras are plenty good enough for most folks, if it's image quality you want, then that is what full frame is about. Go back and try a Canon 5D2 or Nikon D700, but just be warned that it's likely to be an expensive one way trip :eek:

A used 5DMk1 or D700 might be an option, and give you want you want at an affordable price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top