CameraFilter: Help me decide between a low-end SLR and a high-end point and shoot!
April 6, 2010 8:20 PM Subscribe
I'm sort of looking into a new camera, and I can't decide whether to get a high-end point and shoot or an entry level SLR. Help me pick!
For awhile now I've been using a Canon Powershot. It does what I need it to, but I'm going to be doing some traveling soon, and I can't help but feel that I should get a new camera. A bunch of my friends have SLRs and all their pictures come out really good, so I've been investigating going down that route.
It looks like the Nikon D5000 has been getting really good reviews as an entry-level SLR. It comes with a stock lens and is really reasonable at somewhat under $700. A coworker who's heavily into photography pointed me to the Canon G11 today. I actually used it a bit to take some group shots and it worked really well. It's a point-and-shoot, but it had some extra options like ISO speed and over/underexposure., so it's not just your standard camera. On top of all that, it has really good reviews.
I'm really unsure of what to do. Do I go with the lowest SLR out there and perhaps work my way up, or do I go with a high-end point and shoot? I don't want to spend a boatload of cash on this as I don't really use my camera all that much, but it'd be nice to have something that'll last and suits my needs. Anyone have any ideas?
For awhile now I've been using a Canon Powershot. It does what I need it to, but I'm going to be doing some traveling soon, and I can't help but feel that I should get a new camera. A bunch of my friends have SLRs and all their pictures come out really good, so I've been investigating going down that route.
It looks like the Nikon D5000 has been getting really good reviews as an entry-level SLR. It comes with a stock lens and is really reasonable at somewhat under $700. A coworker who's heavily into photography pointed me to the Canon G11 today. I actually used it a bit to take some group shots and it worked really well. It's a point-and-shoot, but it had some extra options like ISO speed and over/underexposure., so it's not just your standard camera. On top of all that, it has really good reviews.
I'm really unsure of what to do. Do I go with the lowest SLR out there and perhaps work my way up, or do I go with a high-end point and shoot? I don't want to spend a boatload of cash on this as I don't really use my camera all that much, but it'd be nice to have something that'll last and suits my needs. Anyone have any ideas?
Best answer: It's not the camera. It's the photographer. Get to know your camera and you can take amazing photos in all but the most challenging lighting environments.
I have a Canon PnS and a Nikon d80. For the last year plus the Nikon sees no action but the Canon goes everywhere I go.
I *really* wanted that Nikon dSLR. I loved it. I still love taking photos with it. But I never take it with me because I like to travel light. And the more I travel? The further away I get from that dSLR.
posted by FlamingBore at 8:28 PM on April 6, 2010
I have a Canon PnS and a Nikon d80. For the last year plus the Nikon sees no action but the Canon goes everywhere I go.
I *really* wanted that Nikon dSLR. I loved it. I still love taking photos with it. But I never take it with me because I like to travel light. And the more I travel? The further away I get from that dSLR.
posted by FlamingBore at 8:28 PM on April 6, 2010
Best answer: The G11 seems appropriate for your needs and wants. Don't spend extra money on a dslr unless you *want* to get it and get into photography and invest more cash for better/more lenses. The stock lens is generally fine, but you'll find that you'll want a new one in a few months' time.
posted by kirstk at 8:29 PM on April 6, 2010
posted by kirstk at 8:29 PM on April 6, 2010
The big advantages of the DSLRs are the larger sensor size and interchangeable lenses. Bigger sensors mean much, much better low light performance and more "real" detail in the pictures (rather than just megapixels, which don't mean much at this point).
With interchangeable lenses you get more options. For instance, put an f1.4 or 1.8 lens on that SLR and you'll get great low light performance and incredibly dramatic shallow depth of field that gives your pictures a great look. That's just not possible with a point and shoot.
posted by The Lamplighter at 8:30 PM on April 6, 2010 [1 favorite]
With interchangeable lenses you get more options. For instance, put an f1.4 or 1.8 lens on that SLR and you'll get great low light performance and incredibly dramatic shallow depth of field that gives your pictures a great look. That's just not possible with a point and shoot.
posted by The Lamplighter at 8:30 PM on April 6, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: The G11 is fantastic for what it is, and I carry it in my bag daily. However, the larger sensor of the dslr - even with a kit lens or cheap prime - is going to produce MUCH cleaner images. If you can tolerate the slightly larger bulk of the entry level dslr, go for it!
posted by blaneyphoto at 8:38 PM on April 6, 2010
posted by blaneyphoto at 8:38 PM on April 6, 2010
When traveling, if you buy a DSLR you're pretty much going to have to bring a camera bag with you wherever you go. If you have a high-end point and shoot you can stick it in your pocket. It's up to you to decide how important portability is to you.
posted by kylej at 8:41 PM on April 6, 2010
posted by kylej at 8:41 PM on April 6, 2010
Best answer: Sounds like the want the new camera in order to take better quality pictures and not because of an interest in photography as a hobby. I'd go with the G11.
posted by lockestockbarrel at 8:43 PM on April 6, 2010
posted by lockestockbarrel at 8:43 PM on April 6, 2010
Best answer: I used to think it isn't the camera, it's the photographer, until I upgraded from my Nikon P&S to my Canon Rebel dSLR. With the P&S, I had to think about every shot but still rarely got what I wanted. With the dSLR, it practically does the thinking for me, and I'm nearly always happy with the results.
posted by chez shoes at 8:45 PM on April 6, 2010
posted by chez shoes at 8:45 PM on April 6, 2010
I'm no pro myself but I pondered the exact same thing you did and I ended up getting the Panasonic Lumix LX3
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/
I liked that it has both aperture and shutter priority shooting modes, and an aperture that opens all the way up to f2.0 and a very wide lens (24mm equiv), and one of the largest image sensors you can find on a compact. Also has funky things like exposure bracketing. These are features normally only found on DSLRs, yet this camera isn't so large / heavy / expensive to carry around.
The downside of course is that you won't get pictures as nice as a DSLR, if that's what your focus is, and this camera's zoom is practically non-existent. I definitely prefer the pictures out of my friend's DSLRs. But I'd like to think that my purpose of going on nice holidays and parties is to have fun, and my "fun" is somewhat diminished by having to carefully babysit a big honking camera worth a thousand dollars.
posted by xdvesper at 8:48 PM on April 6, 2010 [1 favorite]
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/
I liked that it has both aperture and shutter priority shooting modes, and an aperture that opens all the way up to f2.0 and a very wide lens (24mm equiv), and one of the largest image sensors you can find on a compact. Also has funky things like exposure bracketing. These are features normally only found on DSLRs, yet this camera isn't so large / heavy / expensive to carry around.
The downside of course is that you won't get pictures as nice as a DSLR, if that's what your focus is, and this camera's zoom is practically non-existent. I definitely prefer the pictures out of my friend's DSLRs. But I'd like to think that my purpose of going on nice holidays and parties is to have fun, and my "fun" is somewhat diminished by having to carefully babysit a big honking camera worth a thousand dollars.
posted by xdvesper at 8:48 PM on April 6, 2010 [1 favorite]
If you have a high-end point and shoot you can stick it in your pocket. It's up to you to decide how important portability is to you.
posted by kylej
Not true with the G11 (unless you've got bigger than average pockets, I guess). Not that I consider it an issue, but some people expect their cameras to be wafer thin. If that applies to you, the G11 certainly isn't something you'll be interested in.
posted by blaneyphoto at 8:53 PM on April 6, 2010
posted by kylej
Not true with the G11 (unless you've got bigger than average pockets, I guess). Not that I consider it an issue, but some people expect their cameras to be wafer thin. If that applies to you, the G11 certainly isn't something you'll be interested in.
posted by blaneyphoto at 8:53 PM on April 6, 2010
For awhile now I've been using a Canon Powershot. It does what I need it to, but I'm going to be doing some traveling soon, and I can't help but feel that I should get a new camera.
You've got a camera that does what you need. You're done!
If you have something you want to do that it doesn't, then say what that is and then you can see what kind of camera would be suitable.
I have a Nikon dSLR, and I had a specific need: low-light no-flash indoor event photography. I use it all the time, and it rocks.
Others might want a dSLR because they focus and shoot very quickly - no multi-second focussing lag like my old point and shoot.
So: what kind of photography do you want to do, and does your point and shoot not deliver?
posted by zippy at 8:54 PM on April 6, 2010
You've got a camera that does what you need. You're done!
If you have something you want to do that it doesn't, then say what that is and then you can see what kind of camera would be suitable.
I have a Nikon dSLR, and I had a specific need: low-light no-flash indoor event photography. I use it all the time, and it rocks.
Others might want a dSLR because they focus and shoot very quickly - no multi-second focussing lag like my old point and shoot.
So: what kind of photography do you want to do, and does your point and shoot not deliver?
posted by zippy at 8:54 PM on April 6, 2010
Bought a used Sony DSC-H1 on eBay about a year ago, and couldn't be happier.
More control than your typical point and shoot, but not as intense as a dSLR. I had the same general thoughts and as xdvesper above.
posted by midatlanticwanderer at 8:56 PM on April 6, 2010
More control than your typical point and shoot, but not as intense as a dSLR. I had the same general thoughts and as xdvesper above.
posted by midatlanticwanderer at 8:56 PM on April 6, 2010
Response by poster: First, thanks to everyone for their help on this. Here are some responses.
posted by gchucky at 9:15 PM on April 6, 2010
I used to think it isn't the camera, it's the photographer, until I upgraded from my Nikon P&S to my Canon Rebel dSLR. With the P&S, I had to think about every shot but still rarely got what I wanted. With the dSLR, it practically does the thinking for me, and I'm nearly always happy with the results. (chez shoes)It's a relief to know that I'm not the only person who feels that way. My company took a trip recently and a coworker (with an dSLR) and I were walking around. He just wandered around taking random shots that came out great, whereas I was generally unhappy with what I produced.
Sounds like the want the new camera in order to take better quality pictures and not because of an interest in photography as a hobby. (lockestockbarrel)Yeah, that sort of hits the nail on the head. Thank you for summing it so succinctly.
For the last year plus the Nikon sees no action but the Canon goes everywhere I go. I *really* wanted that Nikon dSLR. I loved it. I still love taking photos with it. But I never take it with me because I like to travel light. And the more I travel? The further away I get from that dSLR. (FlamingBore)Could you elaborate on that a bit? Why don't you use your dSLR anymore? Is it just a question of portability?
So: what kind of photography do you want to do, and does your point and shoot not deliver? (zippy)It's a lame answer, but I'm looking at just general use. When I go on vacation I want to be able to take decent pictures, but I also want something that lets me take a decent picture just sitting around in my apartment. Maybe I made a meal that was particularly memorable or something - stupid things like that. I don't do photography for a job so I don't need it for anything like that, though.
posted by gchucky at 9:15 PM on April 6, 2010
Best answer: "It's not the camera. It's the photographer."
That's a cliche but it's just not true. Of COURSE someone with talent will take better photos with a point and shoot than a doofus will with a world class SLR, but Monet did better work with oils than he would have with crayolas. Period.
The quality of my photography, both in terms of the crispness and art of the photos I've taken, increased dramatically when I bought my first DSLR. And I still feel like I'm just getting started. A DSLR is something you can really grow with.
I'd vote for the Nikon D5000. It's a fantastic camera that opens up a world of possibilities. That's a camera you can grow with. Find yourself fascinated by macro photography? You can buy a macro lens for it. What if you start getting into taking portraits? You can buy a really sweet prime for it. Maybe street photography really does it for you? Or sports? Nature? Whatever... You can grow with that Nikon. And when you outgrow it, you just buy a new body for the lenses you already have.
Unless you will hate carrying around anything larger than a point and shoot, go with the Nikon. You won't regret it. And let's face it, you can't slip that G11 into your pants pocket, so you'll be carrying it around. Go with the Nikon.
Cheers!
posted by 2oh1 at 9:25 PM on April 6, 2010 [2 favorites]
That's a cliche but it's just not true. Of COURSE someone with talent will take better photos with a point and shoot than a doofus will with a world class SLR, but Monet did better work with oils than he would have with crayolas. Period.
The quality of my photography, both in terms of the crispness and art of the photos I've taken, increased dramatically when I bought my first DSLR. And I still feel like I'm just getting started. A DSLR is something you can really grow with.
I'd vote for the Nikon D5000. It's a fantastic camera that opens up a world of possibilities. That's a camera you can grow with. Find yourself fascinated by macro photography? You can buy a macro lens for it. What if you start getting into taking portraits? You can buy a really sweet prime for it. Maybe street photography really does it for you? Or sports? Nature? Whatever... You can grow with that Nikon. And when you outgrow it, you just buy a new body for the lenses you already have.
Unless you will hate carrying around anything larger than a point and shoot, go with the Nikon. You won't regret it. And let's face it, you can't slip that G11 into your pants pocket, so you'll be carrying it around. Go with the Nikon.
Cheers!
posted by 2oh1 at 9:25 PM on April 6, 2010 [2 favorites]
I love my big'ol Nikon dSLR bodies but unless you know you're willing to carry a larger camera for hours on end, I'd start with one of the excellent Canon P&Ss
Having full control over exposure, a wide enough lens and capturing in RAW are the essentials in my opinion. The G11 is considered by many to be the dSLR camera enthusiast's P&S. It has all the controls to run the camera in full manual mode and has a great sensor. But, there's a new kid on the Canon block. The S90. It has the same sensor as the G11, same basic functions in a much slimmer and pocketable package.
posted by michswiss at 9:29 PM on April 6, 2010
Having full control over exposure, a wide enough lens and capturing in RAW are the essentials in my opinion. The G11 is considered by many to be the dSLR camera enthusiast's P&S. It has all the controls to run the camera in full manual mode and has a great sensor. But, there's a new kid on the Canon block. The S90. It has the same sensor as the G11, same basic functions in a much slimmer and pocketable package.
posted by michswiss at 9:29 PM on April 6, 2010
P.S. When I talk about growing with it, I mean a year or two, maybe three down the line. My first DSLR was a Nikon D50 with the kit lens package. Three years passed before I bought more lenses for it.
If you buy the D5000 you'll most likely be thrilled by what you get. I just mean that down the line, you're not limited to what you initially bought. That's the beauty of a DSLR.
posted by 2oh1 at 9:31 PM on April 6, 2010
If you buy the D5000 you'll most likely be thrilled by what you get. I just mean that down the line, you're not limited to what you initially bought. That's the beauty of a DSLR.
posted by 2oh1 at 9:31 PM on April 6, 2010
I'm new to cameras too, and I also started asking myself if I'm ready for a real dSLR.... when I was introduced to something called the "micro four thirds" camera. They're much, much smaller than dSLRs, but have some of the same features. They're about the same size as point-and-shoots, very light and mobile, but seem to have most of the features of a dSLR.
Maybe others here can elaborate; and i'm sure dSLR purists will have strong opinions, but I urge you to check one out at a camera store, its small size and SLR-style features was a truly intriguing combination.
Examples, examples.
posted by jak68 at 9:36 PM on April 6, 2010
Maybe others here can elaborate; and i'm sure dSLR purists will have strong opinions, but I urge you to check one out at a camera store, its small size and SLR-style features was a truly intriguing combination.
Examples, examples.
posted by jak68 at 9:36 PM on April 6, 2010
Monet did better work with oils than he would have with crayolas. Period.
I understand your point, but its not a great example....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/arts/design/17mone.html
posted by blaneyphoto at 9:49 PM on April 6, 2010
I understand your point, but its not a great example....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/arts/design/17mone.html
posted by blaneyphoto at 9:49 PM on April 6, 2010
Totally up to how you travel, but lugging the dSLR around with camera bag, maybe a spare lens, ends up a total drag if you're walking all over the place.
We have a nice Nikon dSLR, but when we next go proper travelling, I'm buying a small point n shoot.
posted by wilful at 9:53 PM on April 6, 2010
We have a nice Nikon dSLR, but when we next go proper travelling, I'm buying a small point n shoot.
posted by wilful at 9:53 PM on April 6, 2010
I have the Panasonic GF1 micro 4/3 camera with the pancake (no zoom!) lens and I really quite like it. It's bigger than a point-and-shoot, but it's still small enough for me to not feel put out by having to carry it around, which may be more the case with a full-size dSLR. It cost me about $700, bought from a online discount retailer in Japan (where I happen to be). It's another option.
posted by that girl at 10:13 PM on April 6, 2010
posted by that girl at 10:13 PM on April 6, 2010
I always hear a lot of people complaining about the size of a DSLR, the need for a camera bag, but it's really not a problem. When traveling, you should bring no more than one lens. On a Nikon, either the kit lens, such as the 18-55, or the larger 18-200 all purpose lens. Stick this on the camera, throw the camera in your backpack or bag you're already carrying with you, and there's nothing extra to lug around. Most of the time when you're traveling you're not going to be taking the camera out of your pocket and putting it away a million times. You'll take it out of your bag when you arrive wherever you want to take photos, and keep it out while you're there. If you want a good pocket camera for snapshots, that you'll always have on you, get an iPhone.
posted by lsemel at 10:27 PM on April 6, 2010
posted by lsemel at 10:27 PM on April 6, 2010
Also, if you can get a used or refurbished Nikon D40, that's about the same thing as the D5000 but only $400 with lens.
posted by lsemel at 10:34 PM on April 6, 2010
posted by lsemel at 10:34 PM on April 6, 2010
If bulk is a worry, have a look at the small Pentax dslr (KX), not quite the best of both worlds, but getting closer to it ...
posted by GeeEmm at 10:46 PM on April 6, 2010
posted by GeeEmm at 10:46 PM on April 6, 2010
P&Ss are so cheap these days, you could do both...i have a cheap panasonic (that i hate) that goes around in my tool bag, and a nikon d200 that's paid for itself already in a year or two of shooting documentary work for friends (headshots, interiors, art portfolio stuff, etc)...i don't charge much, but am always pleasantly surprised by how many people want good, clear shots...
that being said, if you go the dslr route, absolutely do not get the kit lens (this isnt always an option at the lower end...sell the lens on ebay and get something better)....they are always crap, particularly the super-zooms that go from 18-300mm...they are very distorty (i.e good luck taking any pictures with a straight line in them). even a third-party moderate zoom is going to be a better bet (mine's a 24-75mm from sigma) check out the totally anal-retentive reviews on this site before you buy...lots of good, quantitative information about distortion, chromatic abberration, etc. Also, (if you're familiar with 35mm photography) always remember that lower-end dslrs have an aps-c format (as opposed to -full frame) sensor...what this means is that all the lenses you are familiar with are going to be more 'telephoto' or 'close-up'. For example, a 'normal' lens on a 35mm film camera is a 50mm lens whereas on aps-c (sometimes called 'DX' format) its going to be around 35mm (the ratio is 1.5...a 50mm lens is going to act like 75mm, etc) If you're new to photography in general, start with a normal lens and use your feet to zoom ;) ...i got a 35mm f/1.4...it's pricey, but awesome! also it's manual focus. (i believe you can pick up the autofocus f/1.8 for about $100)
also, i strongly suggest the nikon for dslr... they've had the same lens mount since the 1950's and you can often pick up wierd old lenses for cheap cheap cheap...i got bellows for mine...great for super close-up work, slide and negative copying, and tilt-shift photography
posted by sexyrobot at 12:15 AM on April 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
that being said, if you go the dslr route, absolutely do not get the kit lens (this isnt always an option at the lower end...sell the lens on ebay and get something better)....they are always crap, particularly the super-zooms that go from 18-300mm...they are very distorty (i.e good luck taking any pictures with a straight line in them). even a third-party moderate zoom is going to be a better bet (mine's a 24-75mm from sigma) check out the totally anal-retentive reviews on this site before you buy...lots of good, quantitative information about distortion, chromatic abberration, etc. Also, (if you're familiar with 35mm photography) always remember that lower-end dslrs have an aps-c format (as opposed to -full frame) sensor...what this means is that all the lenses you are familiar with are going to be more 'telephoto' or 'close-up'. For example, a 'normal' lens on a 35mm film camera is a 50mm lens whereas on aps-c (sometimes called 'DX' format) its going to be around 35mm (the ratio is 1.5...a 50mm lens is going to act like 75mm, etc) If you're new to photography in general, start with a normal lens and use your feet to zoom ;) ...i got a 35mm f/1.4...it's pricey, but awesome! also it's manual focus. (i believe you can pick up the autofocus f/1.8 for about $100)
also, i strongly suggest the nikon for dslr... they've had the same lens mount since the 1950's and you can often pick up wierd old lenses for cheap cheap cheap...i got bellows for mine...great for super close-up work, slide and negative copying, and tilt-shift photography
posted by sexyrobot at 12:15 AM on April 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
also, a quick note on the 'normal' lens...back when 35mm SLRs were being developed, they were designed in such a way that if you took a picture with a 50mm 'normal' lens, printed out an 8"x10" from it and held it at a comfortable viewing distance, that the objects in the picture would appear the same size as they did in life...i.e. it is supposed to perfectly mimic the human eye. neat, right?
posted by sexyrobot at 12:22 AM on April 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by sexyrobot at 12:22 AM on April 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: You'll definitely get higher quality photos with the DSLR, but I'd ask yourself how high a quality you really require. Do you want to print your pictures and hang them in your house? Then get the DSLR. Do you foresee buying a nice long telephoto lens (or a great macro lens) so you can photograph wildlife, i.e, zebras or insects? Then get the DSLR. Do you think you might ever want to buy/borrow some lights and learn studio shooting? Then get the DSLR. But, if you're not going make 16x20 prints, you don't care about zooming in on on things from afar or super-close, and you aren't interested in studio shooting, then get a nice P&S. I have a Panny Lumix DMC FX-35 and it goes everywhere. I wish the dust seals were tighter on it, as I'm about to have to send it in to get it cleaned out, but I've dropped it a couple of times now, and shot a ton w/ it, and it's a super camera which fits very nicely in any pants pockets.
posted by Lukenlogs at 1:03 AM on April 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Lukenlogs at 1:03 AM on April 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
If the physical size of the camera is an issue at all, I'd go with a genuinely pocketable high end p&s camera; probably a Canon S90.
If you don't have a problem with a camera hanging on a shoulder strap, you'll generally have far more picture taking capability with even the lowest end DSLR than you will with the alternatives. While the micro 4/3 cameras have tiny bodies, adding a zoom lens gets them inching very close to the smaller conventional DSLR cameras in size.
posted by imjustsaying at 2:13 AM on April 7, 2010
If you don't have a problem with a camera hanging on a shoulder strap, you'll generally have far more picture taking capability with even the lowest end DSLR than you will with the alternatives. While the micro 4/3 cameras have tiny bodies, adding a zoom lens gets them inching very close to the smaller conventional DSLR cameras in size.
posted by imjustsaying at 2:13 AM on April 7, 2010
A Canon S90 or G11 will be great for travel photography and general use. The picture quality and features will be excellent. You might also want to look into one of the Lumix 4/3 cameras - GH1 or GF1. These have SLR-like picture quality and handling with less bulk.
posted by kenliu at 5:24 AM on April 7, 2010
posted by kenliu at 5:24 AM on April 7, 2010
Given how much money I put into my dSLR, I wish I used it more. My easily pocketable Lumix gets a ton more use, shoots great pictures and video, and was simply the better camera for me.
I always come back to a few things when comparing cameras. How fast does it turn on and focus? When you want to shoot a picture of a fleeting moment, can you get to it on time? How big is the sensor? We're talking physical size, a lot of those high megapixel cameras have tiny sensors and produce pretty poor pictures. How big is the glass? The more glass in a lens, the more light and the better pictures will look in low light settings. These things all favor the dSLR, but can be useful in comparing p&s cameras as well.
posted by advicepig at 6:56 AM on April 7, 2010
I always come back to a few things when comparing cameras. How fast does it turn on and focus? When you want to shoot a picture of a fleeting moment, can you get to it on time? How big is the sensor? We're talking physical size, a lot of those high megapixel cameras have tiny sensors and produce pretty poor pictures. How big is the glass? The more glass in a lens, the more light and the better pictures will look in low light settings. These things all favor the dSLR, but can be useful in comparing p&s cameras as well.
posted by advicepig at 6:56 AM on April 7, 2010
You have gotten good advice so far. I would add if you friends that are into photography, buy the same brand they have, especially if you go the DSLR route. The controls are the same, the terminology is the same (even though it doesn't differ much), and you can swap lenses.
posted by Silvertree at 7:31 AM on April 7, 2010
posted by Silvertree at 7:31 AM on April 7, 2010
n-thing the G11 option. Its true that its the photographer not the camera - so while the DSLR could make a good photographer better, it certainly will not make a bad photographer good.
From your post it sounds like you really want a good (better than the standard P&S) camera to get better-than-average pictures.
The G11 gives you great pictures right out of the box, but allows you also to change almost all the options you would with a standard DSLR. The automatic and scene options are nice, and its more portable than the DSLR. I would recommend a DSLR only to serious amateurs who are willing to invest time and money into getting acquainted with the DSLR system and acquiring gear/lenses to meet specific photography purposes (macro, lowlight, sports)
Anybody who says that person with the DSLR got a better picture of the same scene - that person almost always would get a near identical picture of that scene with a standard point-and-shoot also.
For most everybody, unless they want to get into serious photography, a very good point-and-shoot is almost always the best option. Get the G11 - you won't regret it.
posted by cusecase at 8:24 AM on April 7, 2010
From your post it sounds like you really want a good (better than the standard P&S) camera to get better-than-average pictures.
The G11 gives you great pictures right out of the box, but allows you also to change almost all the options you would with a standard DSLR. The automatic and scene options are nice, and its more portable than the DSLR. I would recommend a DSLR only to serious amateurs who are willing to invest time and money into getting acquainted with the DSLR system and acquiring gear/lenses to meet specific photography purposes (macro, lowlight, sports)
Anybody who says that person with the DSLR got a better picture of the same scene - that person almost always would get a near identical picture of that scene with a standard point-and-shoot also.
For most everybody, unless they want to get into serious photography, a very good point-and-shoot is almost always the best option. Get the G11 - you won't regret it.
posted by cusecase at 8:24 AM on April 7, 2010
Best answer: Just wanted to ad that you sound like the perfect candidate for the Panasonic GF1. It's basically the best P&S you can buy. It has no viewfinder (other than the LCD screen), but it still has a big ol' sensor and replaceable lenses.
My brother (who has a Canon 450D/XSi) 's girlfriend has the GF1 and really likes it. I was gifted a Canon 500D/T1i for Christmas, and it's really more of my type of camera. So, to each his/her own.
If you even remotely think you could go either way between a pro-sumer P&S and an entry-level dSLR, you will be most happy with the GF1.
posted by StarmanDXE at 8:57 AM on April 7, 2010
My brother (who has a Canon 450D/XSi) 's girlfriend has the GF1 and really likes it. I was gifted a Canon 500D/T1i for Christmas, and it's really more of my type of camera. So, to each his/her own.
If you even remotely think you could go either way between a pro-sumer P&S and an entry-level dSLR, you will be most happy with the GF1.
posted by StarmanDXE at 8:57 AM on April 7, 2010
If you don't mind the size, get a dSLR.
I got a Canon T1i just before Christmas - there was little to no change in the photographer, but a dramatic increase in photo quality. I believe the T2i has just been released, but I don't know any details. The T1i was just the right price / quality for moving to dSLR...
One other tip, pick up a fast prime lens. (Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II is <>
Just to disagree slightly with some of the comments above, there are very real situations where a P&S is not adequate. These are often in low-light, rapid motion, or long distance zoom - try taking good photos at a kids soccer game with a P&S. A P&S just needs to balance all needs - by being able to exchange lenses a dSLR can perform well in all of these areas...
posted by NoDef at 10:38 AM on April 7, 2010
I got a Canon T1i just before Christmas - there was little to no change in the photographer, but a dramatic increase in photo quality. I believe the T2i has just been released, but I don't know any details. The T1i was just the right price / quality for moving to dSLR...
One other tip, pick up a fast prime lens. (Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II is <>
Just to disagree slightly with some of the comments above, there are very real situations where a P&S is not adequate. These are often in low-light, rapid motion, or long distance zoom - try taking good photos at a kids soccer game with a P&S. A P&S just needs to balance all needs - by being able to exchange lenses a dSLR can perform well in all of these areas...
posted by NoDef at 10:38 AM on April 7, 2010
Sorry something happened on preview...that should be
One other tip, pick up a fast prime lens. (Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II is less than 100 dollars). I have found this lens to be very useful - especially in low light without a flash. Instead of getting lots of blurry photos with our Canon point and shoot, I've gotten some really nice photos...
posted by NoDef at 10:41 AM on April 7, 2010
One other tip, pick up a fast prime lens. (Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II is less than 100 dollars). I have found this lens to be very useful - especially in low light without a flash. Instead of getting lots of blurry photos with our Canon point and shoot, I've gotten some really nice photos...
posted by NoDef at 10:41 AM on April 7, 2010
Best answer: DSLR's produce sharper pictures than any P&S ever could. When I put my P&S pictures next to my friend's ($400 used Nikon D40) DSLR pictures, the difference is astounding. Not just the sharpness, the colors pop out.
Especially for indoor shots. All the flash in the world couldn't help a P&S produce the kinds of pictures a DSLR can get.
posted by exhilaration at 11:16 AM on April 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Especially for indoor shots. All the flash in the world couldn't help a P&S produce the kinds of pictures a DSLR can get.
posted by exhilaration at 11:16 AM on April 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
NoDef is right about those prime lenses - especially the 50mm. People call it a Nifty Fifty because it's cheap and amazing. I have one for my Nikon and I love it.
And following up on what exhilaration said about DSLRs: don't be fooled by the megapixel number. Bigger is only better to a certain point, beyond which the quality actually decreases. That's because they're cramming more pixels onto the same size sensor. At a certain point, you reach the laws of diminishing returns. Some cameras go that route because too many consumers only know how to shop for a camera by the numbers, so they fall for the bigger is better scam. That's why I'd recommend the D5000 you were looking at. Or, if you want to save some money, look for a used D40. Either of those will thrill you.
posted by 2oh1 at 1:52 PM on April 7, 2010
And following up on what exhilaration said about DSLRs: don't be fooled by the megapixel number. Bigger is only better to a certain point, beyond which the quality actually decreases. That's because they're cramming more pixels onto the same size sensor. At a certain point, you reach the laws of diminishing returns. Some cameras go that route because too many consumers only know how to shop for a camera by the numbers, so they fall for the bigger is better scam. That's why I'd recommend the D5000 you were looking at. Or, if you want to save some money, look for a used D40. Either of those will thrill you.
posted by 2oh1 at 1:52 PM on April 7, 2010
+1 to the "fantastic plastic" (50/1.8). That thing has spoiled me pretty badly. As soon as I get me a job (and some spending money), I'm gonna have to invest in some more of these fast prime lenses. (I've got my sights on that 28/1.8...)
That said, if you do go with a Panasonic GF1, apparently the pancake lens is a "must have".
posted by StarmanDXE at 7:27 PM on April 7, 2010
That said, if you do go with a Panasonic GF1, apparently the pancake lens is a "must have".
posted by StarmanDXE at 7:27 PM on April 7, 2010
-1 to the "fantastic plastic" (50/1.8) ;) like i said, until you're in the $2000+ range, you're looking at dslrs with a smaller image sensor, thus 50mm is going to act like 75mm. if you are looking for a prime lens it's going to be 30-35mm...when you look through the viewfinder, it will look like you are looking through your eyes, like the camera isn't even there...
posted by sexyrobot at 11:53 PM on April 7, 2010
posted by sexyrobot at 11:53 PM on April 7, 2010
Sexyrobot -- the 50mm 1.8 is much, much cheaper than any 30-35mm prime lens. It's so cheap that I think anyone starting out with SLRs should pick it up despite the crop factor with the smaller sensor.
posted by The Lamplighter at 9:39 AM on April 8, 2010
posted by The Lamplighter at 9:39 AM on April 8, 2010
Yes. Clearly sexyroboxt doesn't actually own a dSLR. Using his logic, that must mean that telephoto lenses have a negative value(?)
The 50/1.8 is ~$100 new. You're lucky to find a 20/2.8 or 28/1.8 for less than ~$200 used!
I took some great photos with my 50/1.8 last weekend and actually ended up cropping most of them!
Definitely get yourself whatever the cheap prime lens is for the brand you end up with. Also, I'd say you can probably safely skip-out on a telephoto lens (at least at first). I've used mine like once so far and that was just when it was new and I felt like playing with it >_< You can probably get away without one for a while unless you want to take pictures of wildlife or plan to go to a lot of sporting events.
posted by StarmanDXE at 1:49 PM on April 8, 2010
The 50/1.8 is ~$100 new. You're lucky to find a 20/2.8 or 28/1.8 for less than ~$200 used!
I took some great photos with my 50/1.8 last weekend and actually ended up cropping most of them!
Definitely get yourself whatever the cheap prime lens is for the brand you end up with. Also, I'd say you can probably safely skip-out on a telephoto lens (at least at first). I've used mine like once so far and that was just when it was new and I felt like playing with it >_< You can probably get away without one for a while unless you want to take pictures of wildlife or plan to go to a lot of sporting events.
posted by StarmanDXE at 1:49 PM on April 8, 2010
Best answer: nikon lists the 50/1.8 at $135 and the 35/1.8 at $199...and it's sooo not the same thing...i bought a 50 mm and felt way too close-up...then i got the 35mm f/1.4 and it's my precioussss...;)
that being said, my advice is to just get the d5000 (it looks like a really good deal...i got my d200 off ebay and saved a ton of money but YMMV) with the 18-55 kit lens and hold off on getting any other lenses until you feel really comfortable with the camera (i read the review of the kit lens and it isn't allll bad...though it will be sort of low contrast and some color fringing around the borders...setting the camera color to 'vivid' should help a bit with the contrast, tho) ...set the zoom to 35mm and just keep it there for a while...tape it down...you'll see what i'm talking about.
some more advice: you'll see a lot of packages (esp. on ebay) where it comes with a million accessories. avoid those. all that stuff is going to be crap quality. but one with an extra battery, case, and clear filter (to protect the lens) is a good idea (though, when it comes to cases, one that's filthy, ugly as fuck, and doesn't really look like a camera case is the one that won't get stolen). get an aluminum tripod, not a plastic one, make sure it's sturdy...but light enough that it's not a total drag. get this book. and use the viewfinder, not the 'live view' on the lcd...you WILL get better focus that way.
posted by sexyrobot at 2:52 PM on April 8, 2010
that being said, my advice is to just get the d5000 (it looks like a really good deal...i got my d200 off ebay and saved a ton of money but YMMV) with the 18-55 kit lens and hold off on getting any other lenses until you feel really comfortable with the camera (i read the review of the kit lens and it isn't allll bad...though it will be sort of low contrast and some color fringing around the borders...setting the camera color to 'vivid' should help a bit with the contrast, tho) ...set the zoom to 35mm and just keep it there for a while...tape it down...you'll see what i'm talking about.
some more advice: you'll see a lot of packages (esp. on ebay) where it comes with a million accessories. avoid those. all that stuff is going to be crap quality. but one with an extra battery, case, and clear filter (to protect the lens) is a good idea (though, when it comes to cases, one that's filthy, ugly as fuck, and doesn't really look like a camera case is the one that won't get stolen). get an aluminum tripod, not a plastic one, make sure it's sturdy...but light enough that it's not a total drag. get this book. and use the viewfinder, not the 'live view' on the lcd...you WILL get better focus that way.
posted by sexyrobot at 2:52 PM on April 8, 2010
Using his logic, that must mean that telephoto lenses have a negative value(?)
sorry...missed this comment on preview...sorry if i wasn't clear...a 35mm film frame or full size sensor is 1.5x larger than a DX sensor, so a 50mm 'prime' on a dx sensor is going to act like 50mmx1.5=75mm, 100mm is going to act like 150, 35mm like 52.5mm...does that make it any clearer?
the idea of a prime lens is that it doesn't impart any magnification (or reduction) to the scene. when you look through the camera it's like it isn't even there...it's like your eyes.
but, like i said, stick with the kit lens for a while (it has both 35mm and 50mm...pay attention to what feels more comfortable to you)...when you figure out what your 'space' is, then get another lens...(one with a fixed focal length is ALWAYS going to take better pictures than a zoom lens.)
for some people, their space is much farther away...people who shoot birds or sports or celebrities, for example. for me my space is much more intimate and 'human' having a lens that is as close to being my eye is very important. YMMV.
posted by sexyrobot at 3:14 PM on April 8, 2010
sorry...missed this comment on preview...sorry if i wasn't clear...a 35mm film frame or full size sensor is 1.5x larger than a DX sensor, so a 50mm 'prime' on a dx sensor is going to act like 50mmx1.5=75mm, 100mm is going to act like 150, 35mm like 52.5mm...does that make it any clearer?
the idea of a prime lens is that it doesn't impart any magnification (or reduction) to the scene. when you look through the camera it's like it isn't even there...it's like your eyes.
but, like i said, stick with the kit lens for a while (it has both 35mm and 50mm...pay attention to what feels more comfortable to you)...when you figure out what your 'space' is, then get another lens...(one with a fixed focal length is ALWAYS going to take better pictures than a zoom lens.)
for some people, their space is much farther away...people who shoot birds or sports or celebrities, for example. for me my space is much more intimate and 'human' having a lens that is as close to being my eye is very important. YMMV.
posted by sexyrobot at 3:14 PM on April 8, 2010
Sexyrobot -- I'm used to Canon stuff, where the 50mm f/1.8 fluctuates between $70 and $100, and anything else is waaay more. I have a 28mm 2.8 lens that's basically "normal" on my Rebel, and it was about $150 more and takes vastly inferior pictures.
These kit lenses are fine for what they are but they are so slow! At least 80% of the pictures I take would be basically impossible with the kit because of the low light. And I'm not talking about candlelight, I mean anything indoors. Doesn't matter how many lights I turn on inside -- at the kit's f/4 the pictures will be blurry, unexposed, or noisy due to high ISO.
I would LOVE a 35mm f/1,4 but it's $370! Hard to justify.
posted by The Lamplighter at 5:32 PM on April 8, 2010
These kit lenses are fine for what they are but they are so slow! At least 80% of the pictures I take would be basically impossible with the kit because of the low light. And I'm not talking about candlelight, I mean anything indoors. Doesn't matter how many lights I turn on inside -- at the kit's f/4 the pictures will be blurry, unexposed, or noisy due to high ISO.
I would LOVE a 35mm f/1,4 but it's $370! Hard to justify.
posted by The Lamplighter at 5:32 PM on April 8, 2010
I have a 28mm 2.8 lens that's basically "normal" on my Rebel, and it was about $150 more and takes vastly inferior pictures.
well yeah, those extra f-stops do matter...there is a direct mathematical relationship between aperture size and angular resolution...when you open it up all the way, even though your depth-of-field shrinks to razor-thin, what is in focus is sharp sharp sharp!
These kit lenses are fine for what they are but they are so slow!
well, yeah, and i would never use one, but gchucky's gonna be on a learning curve for a while...until he figures out what he is shooting (as opposed to what he thinks he might want to be shooting), it'll probably be fine...
I would LOVE a 35mm f/1,4 but it's $370! Hard to justify.
lol, tell me about it...the nikon lists at ~$1200 (and is almost impossible to even buy NEW...special order, 2-3 months for delivery, not even b&h keeps it in stock)...i had to stalk it on ebay for like a year, where it was mostly selling in the $700 range (used!)...finally picked one up in mint condition (outside of the fact that it had no rubber focusing grip, making it a bit of a 'pariah'...some photogs take them off and wrap them with sticky tape...replaced it for ten bucks, good as new) for $350...Worth. Every. Fuckin'. Penny. I originally had the 50mm 1.2 (which took even sharper shots)...but it was just too telephoto for me (i actally sold it for a profit...good prime lenses have awesome resale value)...the 35mm lets me get 'all up in there' ;) if you haven't used one, see if your camera store rents them out (maybe try borrowlenses.com...i haven't tried them but gizmodo reccomends them highly)...try it and you'll be hooked (one of us one of us! ;)
and thus, gchucky, you see one of the downsides to owning a dSLR...Chronic Lens Addiction. ;) I just noticed a few on overstock.com (7mm fisheye, 800mm mirror lens) that look tasty for my collection...)
posted by sexyrobot at 6:23 PM on April 8, 2010
well yeah, those extra f-stops do matter...there is a direct mathematical relationship between aperture size and angular resolution...when you open it up all the way, even though your depth-of-field shrinks to razor-thin, what is in focus is sharp sharp sharp!
These kit lenses are fine for what they are but they are so slow!
well, yeah, and i would never use one, but gchucky's gonna be on a learning curve for a while...until he figures out what he is shooting (as opposed to what he thinks he might want to be shooting), it'll probably be fine...
I would LOVE a 35mm f/1,4 but it's $370! Hard to justify.
lol, tell me about it...the nikon lists at ~$1200 (and is almost impossible to even buy NEW...special order, 2-3 months for delivery, not even b&h keeps it in stock)...i had to stalk it on ebay for like a year, where it was mostly selling in the $700 range (used!)...finally picked one up in mint condition (outside of the fact that it had no rubber focusing grip, making it a bit of a 'pariah'...some photogs take them off and wrap them with sticky tape...replaced it for ten bucks, good as new) for $350...Worth. Every. Fuckin'. Penny. I originally had the 50mm 1.2 (which took even sharper shots)...but it was just too telephoto for me (i actally sold it for a profit...good prime lenses have awesome resale value)...the 35mm lets me get 'all up in there' ;) if you haven't used one, see if your camera store rents them out (maybe try borrowlenses.com...i haven't tried them but gizmodo reccomends them highly)...try it and you'll be hooked (one of us one of us! ;)
and thus, gchucky, you see one of the downsides to owning a dSLR...Chronic Lens Addiction. ;) I just noticed a few on overstock.com (7mm fisheye, 800mm mirror lens) that look tasty for my collection...)
posted by sexyrobot at 6:23 PM on April 8, 2010
nikon lists the 50/1.8 at $135 and the 35/1.8 at $199...and it's sooo not the same thing...
Did not realize the price-difference was so small for Nikon! That said, if the OP (or anyone else) goes Nikon, I'd definitely recommend the 35/1.8 over the 50/1.8 as well :-p
However, I prefer Canon and find their camera bodies to be superior ;-)
posted by StarmanDXE at 7:49 AM on April 9, 2010
Did not realize the price-difference was so small for Nikon! That said, if the OP (or anyone else) goes Nikon, I'd definitely recommend the 35/1.8 over the 50/1.8 as well :-p
However, I prefer Canon and find their camera bodies to be superior ;-)
posted by StarmanDXE at 7:49 AM on April 9, 2010
Doesn't matter how many lights I turn on inside -- at the kit's f/4 the pictures will be blurry, unexposed, or noisy due to high ISO.
Sounds like maybe you should trade-up for the newer, Image Stabilized lenses? My EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is pretty good for my current wide-angle needs. It's probably the best bargain next to the 50mm f/1.8. And, while I'd love to get myself an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, at ~9x the price of the kit lens, I'm not sure if I can ever justify it... Will probably just get a 20mm f/2.8 or a 28mm f/1.8 instead... (And maybe an EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM someday! >_< )
posted by StarmanDXE at 8:00 AM on April 9, 2010
Sounds like maybe you should trade-up for the newer, Image Stabilized lenses? My EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is pretty good for my current wide-angle needs. It's probably the best bargain next to the 50mm f/1.8. And, while I'd love to get myself an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, at ~9x the price of the kit lens, I'm not sure if I can ever justify it... Will probably just get a 20mm f/2.8 or a 28mm f/1.8 instead... (And maybe an EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM someday! >_< )
posted by StarmanDXE at 8:00 AM on April 9, 2010
StarmanDXE -- The kit that I already have is an image stabilized lens. It's still pretty useless. Honestly, so's the 28mm f/2.8. Even with the 50mm 1.8 I very often run into situations where I don't have nearly enough light to take decent photos. Maybe I'm just nocturnal.
posted by The Lamplighter at 10:30 AM on April 9, 2010
posted by The Lamplighter at 10:30 AM on April 9, 2010
Yikes! Or try out an external flash? Clearly they make them for a reason! I just don't see myself needing one for my current needs... (But it sounds like you could sure use one!)
posted by StarmanDXE at 1:22 PM on April 9, 2010
posted by StarmanDXE at 1:22 PM on April 9, 2010
Response by poster: Whoa, this is still going.. I gotta keep up a bit.
I went to Adorama the other day and look a look at the D5000. It actually didn't seem all that bad; I usually have a bag on me anyway, so having a camera in there would be fine. They had a bunch of refurbished D5000s for pretty cheap, but I'm not really sure I want to buy refurb, you know? Just seems.. sketchy. Maybe not.
posted by gchucky at 3:41 PM on April 9, 2010
you see one of the downsides to owning a dSLR...Chronic Lens Addiction. ;) (sexyrobot)Haha. You're not the first person to tell me that; a coworker told me to get the D5000 if i want to start a lens collection. PS, thanks for the recommendations on that book and such. Probably going to pick that up.
I went to Adorama the other day and look a look at the D5000. It actually didn't seem all that bad; I usually have a bag on me anyway, so having a camera in there would be fine. They had a bunch of refurbished D5000s for pretty cheap, but I'm not really sure I want to buy refurb, you know? Just seems.. sketchy. Maybe not.
posted by gchucky at 3:41 PM on April 9, 2010
but I'm not really sure I want to buy refurb, you know?
actually, (as your living doesn't depend on it), go for it...make sure it's got full warrantee coverage, tho. adorama is very reputable, you could save a bunch of $, and you might even haggle a bit...they might not come down on the price, but they might throw in an extra battery, or at the very least a protective filter for the lens...or even a star filter (also called CS (cross screen) filter) , those are fun...
posted by sexyrobot at 10:32 PM on April 9, 2010
actually, (as your living doesn't depend on it), go for it...make sure it's got full warrantee coverage, tho. adorama is very reputable, you could save a bunch of $, and you might even haggle a bit...they might not come down on the price, but they might throw in an extra battery, or at the very least a protective filter for the lens...or even a star filter (also called CS (cross screen) filter) , those are fun...
posted by sexyrobot at 10:32 PM on April 9, 2010
The refurbs on DSLRs are usually done by the factory and are often as good as a brand new unit - Adorama generally has a good reputation as far as refurbs go.
posted by kenliu at 1:02 PM on April 10, 2010
posted by kenliu at 1:02 PM on April 10, 2010
Best answer: Just as a follow-up, I went to B&H today and tried out the D5000, the G11 and the Panasonic GF1 - and ended up getting the GF1. It was a little more expensive than the others, but it seems to have everything I want in a camera.
As to lenses, I'll probably get an SLR adapter ring and then the 50mm you guys have talked about. $50 adapter + $100 50mm <>$450 50mm for four thirds.
Thanks to everyone who gave their opinions!
posted by gchucky at 5:02 PM on April 11, 2010
As to lenses, I'll probably get an SLR adapter ring and then the 50mm you guys have talked about. $50 adapter + $100 50mm <>$450 50mm for four thirds.
Thanks to everyone who gave their opinions!
posted by gchucky at 5:02 PM on April 11, 2010
ditto...it's not a 50mm lens that you want, per se, but a prime lens (just google it)...the 50mm is only prime on a 35mm film camera or full-frame sensor digital (i.e. $2000-3000 camera)...the gf1 comes with the 20mm lens, right?...that should be prime, or close enough...stick with that.
posted by sexyrobot at 10:45 AM on April 12, 2010
posted by sexyrobot at 10:45 AM on April 12, 2010
the 50mm is only prime on a 35mm film camera or full-frame sensor digital
This is wrong. By checking Google (or maybe just Wiki) you can find that out for yourself.
A prime lens is simply a fixed focal length lens. Therefore, the 50mm lens is most definitely a prime lens. A non-prime lens is a zoom lens. So, basically every kit lens. From the Wikipedia article:
A prime lens of a given focal length is less versatile than a zoom whose range includes that focal length, but is often of superior optical quality, lighter weight, smaller bulk and lower cost.
Also, generally a prime lens will be "faster" (i.e. wider aperture [or lower "f-stop"]) than a zoom lens which contains that focal length. If the zoom lens is as fast (or faster) than the prime lens, odds are its price is about an order of magnitude larger than the prime...
Back to the pancake lens: 1) it's very fast (f/1.7) and 2) it's exceptionally small which would give your GF1 more of a P&S feel ( ^_^)
posted by StarmanDXE at 12:32 PM on April 12, 2010
This is wrong. By checking Google (or maybe just Wiki) you can find that out for yourself.
A prime lens is simply a fixed focal length lens. Therefore, the 50mm lens is most definitely a prime lens. A non-prime lens is a zoom lens. So, basically every kit lens. From the Wikipedia article:
A prime lens of a given focal length is less versatile than a zoom whose range includes that focal length, but is often of superior optical quality, lighter weight, smaller bulk and lower cost.
Also, generally a prime lens will be "faster" (i.e. wider aperture [or lower "f-stop"]) than a zoom lens which contains that focal length. If the zoom lens is as fast (or faster) than the prime lens, odds are its price is about an order of magnitude larger than the prime...
Back to the pancake lens: 1) it's very fast (f/1.7) and 2) it's exceptionally small which would give your GF1 more of a P&S feel ( ^_^)
posted by StarmanDXE at 12:32 PM on April 12, 2010
I think what sexyrobot meant was "normal" lens, which is the 20mm pancake lens on the GF1. The other people were specifically mentioning the 50mm lens for the DSLRs because the 50mm lens has that magical combination of being both cheap and sharp.
posted by kenliu at 1:26 PM on April 12, 2010
posted by kenliu at 1:26 PM on April 12, 2010
sorry...guess I'm being confusing...from the wikipedia page that starman just linked to:
"In film and photography, a prime lens is either a photographic lens whose focal length is fixed, as opposed to a zoom lens, or it is the primary lens in a combination lens system. (emphasis mine)
Confusion can sometimes result due to the two meanings of the term if the context does not make the interpretation clear. Alternative terms primary and fixed focal length or FFL are sometimes used to avoid ambiguity."
I have always heard of a normal (or primary) lens referred to as 'prime' for a particular system (35mm, digital, four thirds, medium format, etc) and a non-zoom referred to as 'fixed-focus'
what you want (and what it seems came with your GF1...the 20mm, right? (unless you got the kit with the 14-45mm zoom)) is a normal lens. in a nutshell, a normal lens on a given camera will mimic the human eye. hold the viewfinder up to your eye (in your case hold the viewscreen close to your face) and look through it. then move the camera away. with a normal lens the scene will look pretty much the same. do the same with a telephoto lens and the view through the camera will be magnified, with a wide-angle lens, reduced. is it clear, now? on your camera, the 20mm lens designed for it will be like looking through your own eyes. a 50mm lens will be like looking at the world through binoculars. (the reason why the 50mm lens is so recommended (and picked up groovy nicknames like "nifty fifty" and "fantastic plastic") is because it's the normal lens for a 35mm camera, the dominant consumer technology for like 60 years. don't get me wrong: the 50mm is a great lens, but it's NOT the normal lens for your camera. It's NOT what you need.
a 50mm lens on that camera is just going to be a telephoto lens of fixed focal length. great if that's what you need, but not as versatile as either a normal lens or a good zoom. this wiki page has a list of all the lenses available for your camera that you dont need an adapter ring for (an adapter ring will also add distance between the lens and the camera making it even more telephoto and reduce the amount of light...=bad and unnecessary) ...your best bet (if you bought the kit with the 14-45mm zoom) is to get the 20mm f/1.7, and if you got the kit with the 20mm, get the 14-45mm. those two lenses are all you're ever going to need 99.999% of the time.
absolutely always avoid anything called a 'super-zoom' (for the GF1 this is the 14-140mm)...super-zooms take crappy pictures...it might look fine on the viewfinder, but when you upload it you will see: 'barrel' (or 'fisheye') distortions at one end of the zoom, 'pincushion' distortions at the other end, 'chromatic aberrations' (or 'color fringing') around everything at the border of the image, and possibly/likely 'vignetting' (dark corners on the picture), particularly at wider apertures. if, after taking pictures for a year, you feel like you need some more 'zoom', possibly add the 45-200mm zoom to your kit. a good rule-of-thumb for buying a zoom is to avoid anything that zooms more than a factor of 3x or 4x (i.e. 14-45mm: 45 divided by 14= 3(ish). good. 45-200mm: 200 divided by 45= 4(ish). good. 14-140mm: 140 divided by 14= 10. bad.)
posted by sexyrobot at 2:07 PM on April 12, 2010
"In film and photography, a prime lens is either a photographic lens whose focal length is fixed, as opposed to a zoom lens, or it is the primary lens in a combination lens system. (emphasis mine)
Confusion can sometimes result due to the two meanings of the term if the context does not make the interpretation clear. Alternative terms primary and fixed focal length or FFL are sometimes used to avoid ambiguity."
I have always heard of a normal (or primary) lens referred to as 'prime' for a particular system (35mm, digital, four thirds, medium format, etc) and a non-zoom referred to as 'fixed-focus'
what you want (and what it seems came with your GF1...the 20mm, right? (unless you got the kit with the 14-45mm zoom)) is a normal lens. in a nutshell, a normal lens on a given camera will mimic the human eye. hold the viewfinder up to your eye (in your case hold the viewscreen close to your face) and look through it. then move the camera away. with a normal lens the scene will look pretty much the same. do the same with a telephoto lens and the view through the camera will be magnified, with a wide-angle lens, reduced. is it clear, now? on your camera, the 20mm lens designed for it will be like looking through your own eyes. a 50mm lens will be like looking at the world through binoculars. (the reason why the 50mm lens is so recommended (and picked up groovy nicknames like "nifty fifty" and "fantastic plastic") is because it's the normal lens for a 35mm camera, the dominant consumer technology for like 60 years. don't get me wrong: the 50mm is a great lens, but it's NOT the normal lens for your camera. It's NOT what you need.
a 50mm lens on that camera is just going to be a telephoto lens of fixed focal length. great if that's what you need, but not as versatile as either a normal lens or a good zoom. this wiki page has a list of all the lenses available for your camera that you dont need an adapter ring for (an adapter ring will also add distance between the lens and the camera making it even more telephoto and reduce the amount of light...=bad and unnecessary) ...your best bet (if you bought the kit with the 14-45mm zoom) is to get the 20mm f/1.7, and if you got the kit with the 20mm, get the 14-45mm. those two lenses are all you're ever going to need 99.999% of the time.
absolutely always avoid anything called a 'super-zoom' (for the GF1 this is the 14-140mm)...super-zooms take crappy pictures...it might look fine on the viewfinder, but when you upload it you will see: 'barrel' (or 'fisheye') distortions at one end of the zoom, 'pincushion' distortions at the other end, 'chromatic aberrations' (or 'color fringing') around everything at the border of the image, and possibly/likely 'vignetting' (dark corners on the picture), particularly at wider apertures. if, after taking pictures for a year, you feel like you need some more 'zoom', possibly add the 45-200mm zoom to your kit. a good rule-of-thumb for buying a zoom is to avoid anything that zooms more than a factor of 3x or 4x (i.e. 14-45mm: 45 divided by 14= 3(ish). good. 45-200mm: 200 divided by 45= 4(ish). good. 14-140mm: 140 divided by 14= 10. bad.)
posted by sexyrobot at 2:07 PM on April 12, 2010
Response by poster:
posted by gchucky at 6:05 PM on April 12, 2010
Just get the pancake lens and be done with it ;-pHa, I'm not made of cash. I bought the kit with the 14-45, so I think I'm going to learn on that first. Maybe once I'm better I'll get the 20mm. Can't really justify to myself paying $400 on top of what I just paid.
posted by gchucky at 6:05 PM on April 12, 2010
400 dollars!? jesus christ! well...that's what u get for buying the latest toy ;)
posted by sexyrobot at 10:45 PM on April 12, 2010
posted by sexyrobot at 10:45 PM on April 12, 2010
sexyrobot: sorry...guess I'm being confusing...from the wikipedia page that starman just linked to:
GAH! No. You're still not understanding the other useage of the word "prime." Please read the subsection of the Wikipedia article so you'll understand.
sexyrobot: I have always heard of a normal (or primary) lens referred to as 'prime' for a particular system (35mm, digital, four thirds, medium format, etc) and a non-zoom referred to as 'fixed-focus'
Yes. Primary, not prime. Please, let's just let kenliu speak on your behalf ;-)
"I think what sexyrobot meant was "normal" lens, which is the 20mm pancake lens on the GF1. The other people were specifically mentioning the 50mm lens for the DSLRs because the 50mm lens has that magical combination of being both cheap and sharp."
sexyrobot: a 50mm lens on that camera is just going to be a telephoto lens of fixed focal length. great if that's what you need, but not as versatile as either a normal lens or a good zoom
Sure, but the 50mm (at least for Canon) is stupid cheap and a no-brainer purchase. I have little trouble using it and have found that I'll even crop sometimes after shooting with it. It's basically a portrait lens on my APS-C and, shooting something/someone close up with a mildly-telephoto lens really helps blur the background.
sexyrobot: an adapter ring will also add distance between the lens and the camera making it even more telephoto and reduce the amount of light...=bad and unnecessary
All the adapter ring does is place the lens at the right place so it correctly focuses onto the sensor within the GF1. The distance between the sensor in the GF1 and the back of a lens built for it is smaller than the distance between the sensor in, say, a Canon camera. The adapter ring just pushes the lens away from the GF1 so that the sensor in the GF1 is as far from the back of the Canon lens as the Canon sensor would have normally been. No additional telephoto affects or lost light.
gchucky: Ha, I'm not made of cash. I bought the kit with the 14-45, so I think I'm going to learn on that first. Maybe once I'm better I'll get the 20mm. Can't really justify to myself paying $400 on top of what I just paid.
Can't argue with that. But you've got a 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6. After you play with that for a bit, once you use the 20mm f/1.7, you'll wonder why you hadn't gotten it a loooong time ago :-P (Plus, it's less than half as long and about half the weight of your zoom lens.)
posted by StarmanDXE at 2:36 PM on April 13, 2010
GAH! No. You're still not understanding the other useage of the word "prime." Please read the subsection of the Wikipedia article so you'll understand.
sexyrobot: I have always heard of a normal (or primary) lens referred to as 'prime' for a particular system (35mm, digital, four thirds, medium format, etc) and a non-zoom referred to as 'fixed-focus'
Yes. Primary, not prime. Please, let's just let kenliu speak on your behalf ;-)
"I think what sexyrobot meant was "normal" lens, which is the 20mm pancake lens on the GF1. The other people were specifically mentioning the 50mm lens for the DSLRs because the 50mm lens has that magical combination of being both cheap and sharp."
sexyrobot: a 50mm lens on that camera is just going to be a telephoto lens of fixed focal length. great if that's what you need, but not as versatile as either a normal lens or a good zoom
Sure, but the 50mm (at least for Canon) is stupid cheap and a no-brainer purchase. I have little trouble using it and have found that I'll even crop sometimes after shooting with it. It's basically a portrait lens on my APS-C and, shooting something/someone close up with a mildly-telephoto lens really helps blur the background.
sexyrobot: an adapter ring will also add distance between the lens and the camera making it even more telephoto and reduce the amount of light...=bad and unnecessary
All the adapter ring does is place the lens at the right place so it correctly focuses onto the sensor within the GF1. The distance between the sensor in the GF1 and the back of a lens built for it is smaller than the distance between the sensor in, say, a Canon camera. The adapter ring just pushes the lens away from the GF1 so that the sensor in the GF1 is as far from the back of the Canon lens as the Canon sensor would have normally been. No additional telephoto affects or lost light.
gchucky: Ha, I'm not made of cash. I bought the kit with the 14-45, so I think I'm going to learn on that first. Maybe once I'm better I'll get the 20mm. Can't really justify to myself paying $400 on top of what I just paid.
Can't argue with that. But you've got a 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6. After you play with that for a bit, once you use the 20mm f/1.7, you'll wonder why you hadn't gotten it a loooong time ago :-P (Plus, it's less than half as long and about half the weight of your zoom lens.)
posted by StarmanDXE at 2:36 PM on April 13, 2010
I went down a similar road as you, except with the Digital Rebel, which was the cheapo DSLR of its time. I used the cheap kit lens for a while, but when I got a 50mm f1.8 I realized how crappy the kit lens was. I bought a high quality zoom later, but the 50mm and 35mm primes are still my main lenses. The nice thing about prime lenses is that they are generally more compact, so it's not a big deal to carry an extra lens with you in your camera bag.
One thing that was not mentioned here is that when you buy an interchangeable lens camera, you are buying into a system. The lenses you buy will likely outlive the camera body since they can be used on newer bodies, so in the long run it is worthwhile to invest in the lenses.
posted by kenliu at 11:18 AM on April 14, 2010
One thing that was not mentioned here is that when you buy an interchangeable lens camera, you are buying into a system. The lenses you buy will likely outlive the camera body since they can be used on newer bodies, so in the long run it is worthwhile to invest in the lenses.
posted by kenliu at 11:18 AM on April 14, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by drpynchon at 8:27 PM on April 6, 2010