Advice needed - which DSLR, an full frame or APS-C?

This is the place to discuss cameras, camcorders and anything you want to do in relation to photography. Also home to the 'photography competition'.

Moderators: Kryten, Alan b

User avatar
paulsaz
Posts: 6460
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 4:36 pm

Post by paulsaz »

Personally wouldn't have one of the "superzooms", anything with a magnification factor of more than about 3 or 4. Image quality is going to suffer and it's a waste having one of the new bodies with exceptional sensors if you're not going to put great optics in front of it.

Can only speak for the canon kit, the 18-55 is ok, not stellar but pretty good. I'd probably buy body only though and go for either the Canon 17-55 f2.8 or Sigma or Tamron 17-50 f2.8 with the Canon 24-105 f4 as an outside bet, probably a bit too long on a crop especially if you're keen on landscapes. I'd get the optional lens hood for the Canon 17-55, you get one with the Sigma, and always use it.

That 10-20's a great landscape lens for crop sensor bodies as well, I'd have that.
User avatar
Stevie G
Posts: 12265
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:13 pm
Location: By the seaside

Post by Stevie G »

When you say superzooms.... do you mean the 70-300 or would you class the 18-135 in that as well?

I would like something longer as well for wildlife shooting, plus it's easier to get people shots from a distance than having to get closer (and noticed!) How do you work out what equivalent 'zoom' is based on focal length (ie most point and click digital cameras say they're 3x, 10x, etc zoom)?

Although nothing to do with the cameras ability, I like that the 70D has GPS built in. I tend to geotag photos as much as I can but it's usually difficult to get a lot done accurately. A useful feature to have (IMO anyway, I appreciate not to all).

I'm also surprised at how many of my friends want me to buy a camera just so they can have a small brick of gold....!
PSN Gamertag: NoMrMoreNiceGuy
It's all about the scrobbling...
User avatar
Stevie G
Posts: 12265
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:13 pm
Location: By the seaside

Post by Stevie G »

.....although I'm sure someone will point out that if I don't know how long a superzoom zooms I probably don't actually need it yet....! :D
PSN Gamertag: NoMrMoreNiceGuy
It's all about the scrobbling...
User avatar
driver8
Posts: 12233
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 11:24 pm
Location: Malé, Maldives
Contact:

Post by driver8 »

For full-frame goodness, this has gradually been making it's way down from £2500 -

£1900 - Canon EOS 6D Digital SLR Camera with EF 24-105mm f/4 L at Amazon
User avatar
Stevie G
Posts: 12265
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:13 pm
Location: By the seaside

Post by Stevie G »

One of the shops I looked at yesterday had the 6D for around £1330 for the body only, plus a voucher for around £120. Lenses are more expensive for that as well though I believe?
PSN Gamertag: NoMrMoreNiceGuy
It's all about the scrobbling...
cubes
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:31 pm

Post by cubes »

I'm pretty sure the 70-300 is a standard zoom not a super-zoom. My understanding of a superzoom is a lens that covers a very wide range of focal lengths, often going from wide-angle to telephoto, which tends to make it a compromise.
nigel_williams
Member
Posts: 4933
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 4:00 am
Location: South London
Contact:

Post by nigel_williams »

I have the Sigma 18-250 superzoom. It's a handy walkabout lens and takes pretty decent shots, but it's not very good close to the 250mm. I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and that is very good.
User avatar
paulsaz
Posts: 6460
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 4:36 pm

Post by paulsaz »

Yeah for super zooms I'm talking about things like the 18-250. They're a compromise, you get a big range but optically they suffer.

6D is a lovely camera but like you say you need the really expensive lenses to do it justice. Mid range body and glass is a lot more sensible cost wise and will still produce stunning images with a bit of practice.

Something long for wildlife, well the 70 - 300 might work but they're normally pretty slow at the long end. I'd hold off for a bit. The 70-200 f4L non IS is a good deal for Canon but not long enough for serious wildlife, although with a crop sensor and a bit of cropping afterwards you can get pretty close.
User avatar
Sprout Crumble
Posts: 4020
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2000 5:00 am
Location: Saaaf-Eeast

Post by Sprout Crumble »

If you don't mind import, Panamoz have 6D/24-105 kits for £1306.25 if paid by BACS, and the body only at £941.45. They seem to have a good rep and duty is covered.
RobDickinson
Member
Posts: 11334
Joined: Thu May 04, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Christchurch, NZ
Contact:

Post by RobDickinson »

I actually think you can get away with poorer/cheaper lenses on the larger sensor bodies.

The lens doesnt have to be as fast or as sharp.
X360 tag : RobJD
Cirrus888
Posts: 3914
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 11:03 pm
Location: Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Contact:

Post by Cirrus888 »

<iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/khhd90/11974625416/player/ed1c51ffb0" height="534" width="800" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/khhd90/11974101703/player/c3500baa76" height="534" width="800" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/khhd90/11973809365/player/5c24a298c4" height="534" width="800" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/khhd90/11974636976/player/668ba88c91" height="534" width="800" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/khhd90/11974640936/player/b84f14cdb2" height="534" width="800" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>
Cirrus888
Posts: 3914
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 11:03 pm
Location: Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Contact:

Post by Cirrus888 »

All taken with the D800 at F/9, 5 different lenses but which one is which without looking at metadata? Straight out of camera body.

The 5 lenses are (not in order):

Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8
Nikon 35 DX F/1.8
Nikon 35 F/2.0D
Sigma 35 F/1.4

The price range is cheap to expensive.
User avatar
Stevie G
Posts: 12265
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:13 pm
Location: By the seaside

Post by Stevie G »

That fourth gives the widest. Don't like the vignette on the third one! Is that the effect the DX lens has on the full frame D800?

The first looks lacking a bit of colour in the sky compared to the others - I presume none have been fixed in lightroom?
PSN Gamertag: NoMrMoreNiceGuy
It's all about the scrobbling...
User avatar
Stevie G
Posts: 12265
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:13 pm
Location: By the seaside

Post by Stevie G »

Just want to add.... some of you guys have some absolutely stunning photos on your link pages. All quite different but all fantastic and genuinely awe inspiring!
PSN Gamertag: NoMrMoreNiceGuy
It's all about the scrobbling...
Cirrus888
Posts: 3914
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 11:03 pm
Location: Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Contact:

Post by Cirrus888 »

Stevie G wrote:That fourth gives the widest. Don't like the vignette on the third one! Is that the effect the DX lens has on the full frame D800?

The first looks lacking a bit of colour in the sky compared to the others - I presume none have been fixed in lightroom?


Yeah all lenses are slightly different in how wide or narrow they are but all were taken at 35mm.

The one with the vignette is indeed the DX lens and generally the vignetting is more pronounced but it depends on the lens. This is also the cheapest lens and the edges can be cropped. Otherwise it's just as sharp as the rest. None were processed and each lens will have their own colour rendition.
美麗新世界 A Brave New World
User avatar
Woz
Posts: 12647
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: Beneath The archways of aerodynamics

Post by Woz »

To be fair though, if you're going to pick the optimum way to use any lens, it's going to be at a moderately small aperture like F9 and with a zoom it'll be in the middle of its range.

Try opening them all up as wide as possible and then you'll probably see softness at the corners of the weaker lenses.
Cirrus888
Posts: 3914
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 11:03 pm
Location: Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Contact:

Post by Cirrus888 »

Don't get me wrong I love my sigma and my tamron (my most expensive lenses together with the Nikon 80-200mm), it's just that I continually read about people poo pooing cheap lenses when in actual fact the differences are small. The one thing that expensive lenses do share is bloody weight. I hate carrying them.

I will try and do a 35mm night one at the lenses respective widest apertures. F/1.4, F/1.8, F/2.0, F/3.2 and F/2.8 later.
Cirrus888
Posts: 3914
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 11:03 pm
Location: Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Contact:

Post by Cirrus888 »

<iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/khhd90/11998565474/player/4e9730fdec" height="534" width="800" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/khhd90/11998211735/player/29a20d2ab5" height="534" width="800" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/khhd90/11999029556/player/214abced5b" height="534" width="800" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/khhd90/11998567904/player/b0f491c22b" height="534" width="800" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/khhd90/11998509403/player/14bb665486" height="534" width="800" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>
Cirrus888
Posts: 3914
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 11:03 pm
Location: Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Contact:

Post by Cirrus888 »

Looking at the night pictures at their respective widest apertures, you will see that the older lenses suffer the most while the more expensive lenses offer better sharpness and coma control. If you can't see the difference, then just go with the cheaper lenses. If I stopped it all down they would offer similar results in the dark too.
User avatar
Stevie G
Posts: 12265
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:13 pm
Location: By the seaside

Post by Stevie G »

So am I understanding this correctly.... if as the sensor on an APS-C is approximately 1.5 smaller than a full frame an APS-C needs a lens with a focal length of 1.5 lower to get roughly the same size photo?

So a 10-20 lens on an APS-C would give similar size pictures across its range to a 15-30 focal length full frame lens?

Slowly getting there but still need to make decisions on whether FF or cropped, and also on how important physical size is.
PSN Gamertag: NoMrMoreNiceGuy
It's all about the scrobbling...
Post Reply