T3i eos m

[crankypsp]

Planning on purchasing a dslr and getting into photography for the rest of the summer. Thing is, I'm a bit if a newb when it comes to cameras and was wondering if the eos m is actually comparable to dslr's? I was set on the t3i but then I saw the eos m read reviews where it is actually pretty close to dslrs in terms of quality. What would be the differences exactly between to two? And are there any other dslr's worth looking into in the same price range? I can only purchase at my local bestbuy as shipping to my location is a complicated matter.

And if anyone could be kind if enough to direct me to some good photography forums or guides for new people that would be great as well.

I'm mostly looking to shoot some close outdoor shots, not too many action shots though.

 

[Ogre67]

The EOS M is the future of digital photography, just not in that form factor. Eventually (who knows when) there will be no more mirror in the DSLR. It will all change to having no mirror design. There are already mirrorless DSLR's out there from Sony and Pentax. If you want anything close to a DSLR you do not want the EOS M. Not because the specs are bad, but because it has no viewfinder.

The EOS M is a interesting item. To me it says hey I don't want a big DSLR, but I do sorta give a damn about the quality of the pictures. However, not enough of a damn to carry a DSLR. It is epic that it can take all the lenses the DSLR can take and work in a small form factor, but the lack of a view finder is a no go.

I picture the camera as a offering to the masses who use live view on their DSLR instead of shooting through the viewfinder like any sane person would.

I shot a rodeo this weekend and let me tell you it would be neigh impossible to do it without a viewfinder. Mirrorless is the future, just not this one. Think of the EOS M as the greatest point and shoot ever made. It wont replace a DSLR if you are serious, but it closes the gap a significant margin.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I do agree with Ogre67 in the sense that mirrorless will eventually be the future of photography (although after looking at what Vincent Laforet put out on his 5k, perhaps video will be the future of photography, and you'll simply grab a frame if you need a still.)

However most mirror-less options are a non-start as far as anything moving at a decent clip. Additionally there are compromises put on mirrorless bodies that you won't find in dSLR's. Things like direct access (in the form of knobs) to controls (whereas most mirror-less cameras are digital, and may require going through menus. The Sony Nex series is guilty of this), and options to tweak significantly more aspects of the camera. Also the sensor size of dSLR's is bigger (there are exceptions,) and generally speaking the optics available are better (there are some exceptions, like the Olympus OM-D E-M5.)

For now, dSLR's are going to give the best quality, at the fastest speed (relating to autofocus, which is horrendous currently with PS's as well as other mirror-less options,) with the most viable options.

EOS M is small, which is it's greatest advantage. However, no one can really say how good its output is, as it's not on the market yet. I'm sure when it is, dpreview will have a review on it. Additionally, we have no idea what kind of glass will be released with it.

There are only four mirror-less options that I consider worth while right now for someone that needs something as powerful as a dSLR but smaller. However I still won't switch to them, because I don't like the compromises that they have. But if you're interested they are:

Olympus OM-D E-M5 (already mentioned)
Fuji X Pro 1
Fuji X100 (note, this has a 35mm equivalent lens, that is NOT detachable.)
Leica M9 (definitely the best, rivals [at the very least] dSLR's in everything except focusing speed, as it's manual focus only, rangefinder style. However it's priced out of most people's range at $6k just for the body.)

 

[crankypsp]

Thanks for the reply-I am quite serious and your reply has made me quite sure I won't look into the eos m any further. I don't mind carrying the bigger camera for the sake of having a view finder.

Now that that is settled, I'm debating on what kind of lens/body combo to purchase.

I was initially set on the t3i body with either:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Sigma+-...326058720&skuId=2427431&st=sigma 17&cp=1&lp=1

or

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Sigma+-...0135060&skuId=4927851&st=sigma%2017&cp=1&lp=3

I'd picked these two out because they had a pretty decent range with low aperture, which would serve as a great walk around lens if my research on lens is correct.

However there was also the d5100 kit as well:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Nikon+D...uId=9999181300050008&st=nikon d5100&lp=6&cp=1

There is also a kit that comes with 55-200mm instead for 100 less. I also understand that it has the same sensor as the one in the d7000, which is superior to that of the canon.

This kit covers a much larger range, but the lenses included aren't as fairly good. I do love bokeh however, and I was wondering if these would do decently enough for a newbie like me. I won't be taking shots of any sports games, but I will do a couple of nature/animal, macro, and portrait shots.

Is 50mm or 70mm good enough for such shots(taking shots of animals per se)? Or would I need a larger lens? In what scenarios exactly would I actually use up to, lets say 200mm? How far would I have to be for each lens length? And are the standard Nikon 18-55 and 55-300/200 any good?

 

[crankypsp]

I do agree with Ogre67 in the sense that mirrorless will eventually be the future of photography (although after looking at what Vincent Laforet put out on his 5k, perhaps video will be the future of photography, and you'll simply grab a frame if you need a still.)

However most mirror-less options are a non-start as far as anything moving at a decent clip. Additionally there are compromises put on mirrorless bodies that you won't find in dSLR's. Things like direct access (in the form of knobs) to controls (whereas most mirror-less cameras are digital, and may require going through menus. The Sony Nex series is guilty of this), and options to tweak significantly more aspects of the camera. Also the sensor size of dSLR's is bigger (there are exceptions,) and generally speaking the optics available are better (there are some exceptions, like the Olympus OM-D E-M5.)

For now, dSLR's are going to give the best quality, at the fastest speed (relating to autofocus, which is horrendous currently with PS's as well as other mirror-less options,) with the most viable options.

EOS M is small, which is it's greatest advantage. However, no one can really say how good its output is, as it's not on the market yet. I'm sure when it is, dpreview will have a review on it. Additionally, we have no idea what kind of glass will be released with it.

There are only four mirror-less options that I consider worth while right now for someone that needs something as powerful as a dSLR but smaller. However I still won't switch to them, because I don't like the compromises that they have. But if you're interested they are:

Olympus OM-D E-M5 (already mentioned)
Fuji X Pro 1
Fuji X100 (note, this has a 35mm equivalent lens, that is NOT detachable.)
Leica M9 (definitely the best, rivals [at the very least] dSLR's in everything except focusing speed, as it's manual focus only, rangefinder style. However it's priced out of most people's range at $6k just for the body.)

Thanks for the input. I was initially set on the dslr's for some time but once I read about the mirror less options I was confused as to where dslrs now stood. I was thinking that dslr's were essentially replaced now, but I guess not. Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm pretty much no longer interested in the mirror less cameras.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

First, I'll say I'm a Canon guy but I'll say this:
The D5100 and D7000 are both excellent cameras. The 7D is the equivalent body to the D7000, but you're probably not going to want to spend the cash. It's around $1.5k new and $1-$1.2k used. I wouldn't say that the D7000 is better than the 7D however. I tend to try not to get into those kinds of debates. However I guarantee both of those would be MORE than enough camera. (Just go to a site like 500px and etc and see amazing photos taken by significantly lesser cameras...)

I will also note the 55-200mm lens will probably be too tight for all of your general shooting. Nikon has some great wide lens. You'd probably want something like the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, in addition to the 55-200mm you already listed (I'd buy both if possible, not one or the other.)

Bokeh is dependent on three factors. Focal length, Aperture, and distance between the subject and background. The longer the focal length, the larger the Aperture (larger apertures are smaller numbers, like f/2.8, f/2, f/1.4, etc...), and the larger the distance between the subject and the background, the less depth of field there will be (meaning, more bokeh there will be.) Lenses that are f/4.0 or f/5.6 can still get bokeh but they will require more distance between subject and background. Having a long lens is generally the easiest solution. Conversely it's VERY difficult to obliterate a background on anything 35mm and wider. 50mm and longer (like that 55-200mm you listed) should be relatively simple.

I realize that explanation was a bit technical. If you need a better explanation, I can give it a shot.

 

[crankypsp]

First, I'll say I'm a Canon guy but I'll say this:
The D5100 and D7000 are both excellent cameras. The 7D is the equivalent body to the D7000, but you're probably not going to want to spend the cash. It's around $1.5k new and $1-$1.2k used. I wouldn't say that the D7000 is better than the 7D however. I tend to try not to get into those kinds of debates. However I guarantee both of those would be MORE than enough camera. (Just go to a site like 500px and etc and see amazing photos taken by significantly lesser cameras...)

I will also note the 55-200mm lens will probably be too tight for all of your general shooting. Nikon has some great wide lens. You'd probably want something like the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, in addition to the 55-200mm you already listed (I'd buy both if possible, not one or the other.)

Bokeh is dependent on three factors. Focal length, Aperture, and distance between the subject and background. The longer the focal length, the larger the Aperture (larger apertures are smaller numbers, like f/2.8, f/2, f/1.4, etc...), and the larger the distance between the subject and the background, the less depth of field there will be (meaning, more bokeh there will be.) Lenses that are f/4.0 or f/5.6 can still get bokeh but they will require more distance between subject and background. Having a long lens is generally the easiest solution. Conversely it's VERY difficult to obliterate a background on anything 35mm and wider. 50mm and longer (like that 55-200mm you listed) should be relatively simple.

I realize that explanation was a bit technical. If you need a better explanation, I can give it a shot.

True that I am not looking into the greater cameras. I'm trying to fit my budget at around 1k with both body and cameras. After all, I am new to this, so I think its better to start off with a lesser camera. On another note, so out of of the canon lenses I listed would neither one of them be enough alone? I would need an additional lens on top of the 17-50/2.8 or the 17-70/2.8-4.5?

As for the Nikon listed, it actually comes with both the standard 18-55mm as well as the 55-200, or 55-300, depending on which package I would purchase. That's why I was considering the Nikon since it had such a wide range compared to buying the t3i with a single 17-50 or 17-70 high aperture lens for about the same amount of money. (Earlier I kept getting mixed up with the f values and aperture so I wrote as if low aperture was better)

As far as bokeh goes,I think I do understand it a bit more according to your explanation. So due to having a wider lens, there is more background, making it therefore harder to obliterate all that background? So would this matter be solved by simply moving closer towards a subject?- does this give the same effect as zooming in, but with better quality?

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Ah, I see, so out of of the canon lenses I listed would neither one of them be enough alone? I would need an additional lens on top of the 17-50/2.8 or the 17-70/2.8-4.5?

One lens is more than enough to get you started on either system. However for most general purpose shooting 24-200mm covers the most often used focal lengths. Since you're looking at crop bodies, that's a focal length of 16-135mm (roughly) on the Nikon or 15-125mm (roughly) on the Canon. Most consider 24-70 excellent for general purpose and anything longer greater for things of distance. Wider than that, is generally considered for specialty shots, especially in regards to architecture or landscape. Longer than that is for getting closer and tighter shots. Shooting anything that you aren't able to get close to, the longer lens will give advantage. I personally love the 70-200mm focal length, especially for portraits.[/QUOTE]

As for the Nikon listed, it actually comes with both the standard 18-55mm as well as the 55-200, or 55-300, depending on which package I would purchase. That's why I was considering the Nikon since it had such a wide range compared to buying the t3i with a single 17-50 or 17-70 high aperture lens for about the same amount of money. (Earlier I kept getting mixed up with the f values and aperture so I wrote as if low aperture was better)

Having both of those lenses in the bag would be highly advantageous. There are options on the Canon side. If you wanted to do it all in one lens as an example the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM ($299 for a refurb on Adorama) is a great "walk around" lens. I personally would like another lens (even still with this lens) that goes a bit wider, but most won't find that limitation a problem.

As far as bokeh goes,I think I do understand it a bit more according to your explanation. So due to having a wider lens, there is more background, making it therefore harder to obliterate all that background? So would this matter be solved by simply moving closer towards a subject?- does this give the same effect as zooming in, but with better quality?

Well the explanation of why having a wider lens makes it difficult to get better bokeh is a bit technical. To be honest I have a bit of trouble explaining it, but it has to do with the focal length, and the distance between the front element and the sensor. The focal length is shorter on wide lenses, and I guess the easiest way to explain it, is that as a result of the shorter focal length, the angle of the light is wider which makes more of the subject in the frame in focus. Bokeh, as it were, is just sections of the frame that aren't in focus.

Ugh, I did a terrible job at that. Here, read this link, I think it will do much better at explaining it than I did: http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/hardware/how-to-shoot-with-an-extremely-shallow-depth-of-field/

Moving closer to the subject does help decrease depth of field. But it's not for the reasons why you listed. Once again, check the link above. I understand why (honest!) but it's hard to explain. Additionally zooms that zoom optically, like all of the lenses in question, should not decrease quality. I'm not sure if you're saying this, but if you fear telephoto lenses because of 'decreased quality', don't! The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens is regarded by many as the best zoom in existence (on any system at any focal length.) That particular lens is pricey of course, but I mention it just to illustrate the point that a telephoto doesn't lack in optical quality.

Similarly it's more than possible to buy wide lenses that are complete duds. If you really want to dive into reviews on lenses/ bodies, I recommend reading reviews at www.the-digital-picture.com/ (Canon only) or http://www.dpreview.com/ (for everything including mirror-less.) Generally speaking, sticking to first party lenses ensures optical quality, but every once in a while Canon and Nikon will release a dud. Sigma and Tamron on the other hand, I would recommend doing research on, as some of their lenses are great, and some of them are terrible. Sigma generally has improved as of late, but I wouldn't recommend everything they manufacture on their name alone (as an aside, I do own a Sigma lens, and like it.)

 

[crankypsp]

Wow, this guide is pretty amazing(the link you gave me). I don't know why I didn't come across it before. I haven't read it fully yet, but from what I've read so far I've learned quite alot. It's definitely better than all the links I was reading earlier. Thanks for the link!

As far as third party lenses go, I have used those sites already to research a few lenses. However, i think I will go with a first party lens since this will be my first lens+dslr anyways. It will feel a bit more reassuring as well I guess, since I'm not too familiar with the history of Sigma lenses.

I actually have another question as well (Sorry for the bombardment of questions). Is focal length proportional to the aperture values on a lens with varying aperture?

For instance, the 55-200mm f/4-5.6
If I tried using the maximum aperture for 200mm it would have to be 5.6 correct?
But lets say with a 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6
Would the max aperture at 200mm be some value between 4.5 and 5.6?

if so, then would shooting at 200mm with the 55-300 lens be better than as opposed to using the 55-200? Is using the largest possible zoom of a lens actually a realistic thing to do? And in what cases/distances would i actually use 300mm?

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I actually have another question as well (Sorry for the bombardment of questions). Is focal length proportional to the aperture values on a lens with varying aperture?

For instance, the 55-200mm f/4-5.6
If I tried using the maximum aperture for 200mm it would have to be 5.6 correct?
But lets say with a 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6
Would the max aperture at 200mm be some value between 4.5 and 5.6?

if so, then would shooting at 200mm with the 55-300 lens be better than as opposed to using the 55-200? Is using the largest possible zoom of a lens actually a realistic thing to do? And in what cases/distances would i actually use 300mm?

The larger aperture size (the smaller number) will always correspond to the shorter focal length (in both cases 55mm) and the small aperture size (the larger number) will always correspond to the longer focal length (in the first case 200mm and in the second case 300mm.) In the middle of each of those zooms it will be some number between 4.5 and 5.6. Constant aperture lenses of course don't have that variable problem. As an example, in an earlier post I listed a 70-200mm that has a constant aperture of f/2.8. There is also a 70-200m f/4 lens. Constant aperture lenses generally have better optics and are also more expensive than variable aperture lenses.

I'm not sure what your budget is, but you can definitely stretch your dollars by going used. If you want to go that route I would recommend the Fred Miranda forums. At first I thought that it would only have high end stuff, but people on the forum are all different levels of gear, and buy and sell all different levels of gear. It's also a great place to ask questions and learn about photography.