Help Wanted in Choosing a New Camera.

[callorhinus]

I took part in previous discussion (https://www.zoochat.com/community/threads/recommendations-for-a-new-dslr.343284), and I can just say basically the same recommendations. As I see, a lot of people said the same
I hope you will love you new camera, LaughingDove.

On the AA batteries problem. As you do, I prefer to have gadgets which works with AA batteries, but it is almost impossible for cameras last years. But you can have spare Li-Ion accumulators. My and my friends' experience is that there are MUCH more good generic accu's for DSLR than for superzooms. And even using DSLR you will have have option to use AA batteries. There are devices called "battery grips", which must be attached to the camera instead of accu. As for me, the main function of this device is to make (small) camera body more convenient, especially when you shoot in vertical orientation. But it also contains, in my case, cartridge for one or two Li-Ion accumulators, or cartridge for six AA batteries. I used the last one it one or two times, and it can be really usefull. Most of time I have two Li-Ion accu's in the camera, I think it's enough for at least 2000 shots (much more usually, I take photos in RAW only using quite old 12 MPix Canon camera 450D).

 

[LaughingDove]

I took part in previous discussion (https://www.zoochat.com/community/threads/recommendations-for-a-new-dslr.343284), and I can just say basically the same recommendations. As I see, a lot of people said the same
I hope you will love you new camera, LaughingDove.

On the AA batteries problem. As you do, I prefer to have gadgets which works with AA batteries, but it is almost impossible for cameras last years. But you can have spare Li-Ion accumulators. My and my friends' experience is that there are MUCH more good generic accu's for DSLR than for superzooms. And even using DSLR you will have have option to use AA batteries. There are devices called "battery grips", which must be attached to the camera instead of accu. As for me, the main function of this device is to make (small) camera body more convenient, especially when you shoot in vertical orientation. But it also contains, in my case, cartridge for one or two Li-Ion accumulators, or cartridge for six AA batteries. I used the last one it one or two times, and it can be really usefull. Most of time I have two Li-Ion accu's in the camera, I think it's enough for at least 2000 shots (much more usually, I take photos in RAW only using quite old 12 MPix Canon camera 450D).

Thanks for the reply. I've just had a read through that thread you linked above. I did read it a while ago when it was originally posted, but it was useful to read again in the frame of mind of actually considering buying a DSLR.


There are two further general queries that I have.The first is that I came across a 500mm lens that seems to be relatively affordable, a Samyang 500mm f/8 Preset IF MC Lens. I'm assuming there is some reason that this is only slightly more than a 10th of the price of other 500mm lenses, but I'm not sure what that is.

The second is whether a teleconverter is something I should be considering at all?

 

[callorhinus]

There are two further general queries that I have.The first is that I came across a 500mm lens that seems to be relatively affordable, a Samyang 500mm f/8 Preset IF MC Lens. I'm assuming there is some reason that this is only slightly more than a 10th of the price of other 500mm lenses, but I'm not sure what that is.

As far as I know any Samyang lens has manual focus only. I'm afraid that you are not skilled enough to use it as effectively as modern convenient autofocus camera/lens. Besides that, I don't think you will like fixed-focus lens at this moment.
This lens is also has a special design like many telescopes have. It uses a mirror in its optical scheme, this is the reason of its small size and weight, but the bokeh will be most likely quite strange - made of rings, not round spots. Quality of image is also not good enough. So I cannot recommend this lens, especially for new DSLR owner.

The second is whether a teleconverter is something I should be considering at all?

Teleconverter is relatively simple optical device which must be attached between camera and lense to change focus lenght. You have two options: 1.4x ans 2.0x (Canon). As far as I know, first one almost doesn't affect on picture quality, second makes worse picture, but is still usable in many cases. These devices also affect on amount of light.
To use these things or not to use? It depends on your equipment and shooting conditions. What focal lenght did you choose at this moment?

 

[Yassa]

I don't really know how to compare the camera bodies, but it seems that the best value one is a Canon EOS 1300D + 18-55mm III + Tamron 70-300mm (Canon EOS 1300D + 18-55mm III + Tamron 70-300mm + torba + karta - Dobra cena, Opinie w Sklepie RTV EURO AGD) which is 2000PLN compared to the Canon EOS 750D + 18-55 mm IS STM (Canon EOS 1300D + 18-55mm III + Tamron 70-300mm + torba + karta - Dobra cena, Opinie w Sklepie RTV EURO AGD) for 2900PLN and I would have to buy another lens. Is a Canon EOS 750D much better than a Canon EOS 1300D to justify being almost double the price? I can see that the former has 24.2 megapixels rather than 18 megapixels in the latter.

The golden rule when it comes to DSLR photography is that the camera body doesn`t matter so much. I don`t think you`d notice a big difference between the 1300D or the 750d; the picture quaility would be almost identical. The 700d would also be fine. Since Canon seems under commercial pressure to update the camera bodies often, there is usually not a lot of difference between models unless you wait a couple of years. I had the 550d for a couple of years and now I have the 750d, and there is a difference. But not a big one, and the difference between a 700d and a 750d would hardly be noticeable.

BUT what matters are the lenses!!! The big problem when buying cheap kits of a body and 2 lenses are that often the lenses are outdated and bad. That`s definately the case with the 2 lenses in the kit you suggested above - don`t buy it! Neither lens has a image stabilisator, which you absolutely want in a tele lens and which is also nice to have in standard zoom lens. Canon and Tamron have developed very good, cheap lenses in the last years; there are a number of versions available because they were updated very often. The newest versions really are the best; not just because they have image stabilisation, but because they are much sharper. You should check very careful what lens you are buying to make sure you have the newest one. What I would recommend you is to get a Canon 18-55 IS STM II or a Canon 18-135 IS STM as standard lens and a Canon 55-250 IS STM as tele lens.

 

[LaughingDove]

Thanks for the reply @callorhinus

The golden rule when it comes to DSLR photography is that the camera body doesn`t matter so much. I don`t think you`d notice a big difference between the 1300D or the 750d; the picture quaility would be almost identical. The 700d would also be fine. Since Canon seems under commercial pressure to update the camera bodies often, there is usually not a lot of difference between models unless you wait a couple of years. I had the 550d for a couple of years and now I have the 750d, and there is a difference. But not a big one, and the difference between a 700d and a 750d would hardly be noticeable.

BUT what matters are the lenses!!! The big problem when buying cheap kits of a body and 2 lenses are that often the lenses are outdated and bad. That`s definately the case with the 2 lenses in the kit you suggested above - don`t buy it! Neither lens has a image stabilisator, which you absolutely want in a tele lens and which is also nice to have in standard zoom lens. Canon and Tamron have developed very good, cheap lenses in the last years; there are a number of versions available because they were updated very often. The newest versions really are the best; not just because they have image stabilisation, but because they are much sharper. You should check very careful what lens you are buying to make sure you have the newest one. What I would recommend you is to get a Canon 18-55 IS STM II or a Canon 18-135 IS STM as standard lens and a Canon 55-250 IS STM as tele lens.

Ok, so when I look for a lens, IS is a crucial feature, but what about USM or STM? There was some discussion about it in devlifish's thread that callorhinus linked, but I'm not quite clear on the differences.

Also, how important is the f/ number and what sort of values are good? I understand that it is the aperture and I know the basics, but I've never paid much attention to it before and never specifically used it in my camera.

 

[overread]

IS is image stabilization - its not essential. It is a nice boon to have in a lens and becomes more important the more you go past around 200mm since the longer the focal length the faster the shutter speed you need for a sharp shot when hand holding. However a tripod or even a monopod combined with good shooting posture and fitness can let you shoot long lenses without IS.
good to have but not essential.

STM/USM is the focusing system - USM is (for most lenses I think there are 1 or 2 its not the case) can focus manually all the time even when in AF mode which lets you use AF and manual focusing without having to flick switches. It's also your standard fast motor for focusing. STM is newer but is mostly designed to be fast and quiet for video work (for still its not an issue but noise in videos is a pain).


f number is very important and defines the widest aperture. This affects how much light the lens can let into the camera nd the depth of field. Basically the smaller the f number the more light it can let in and the thinner you can make the depth of field. Because it lets in more light its typically bigger optics and thus a higher price bracket. That's why you see huge prices on things like 400mm f2.8 lenses.


OF course with your budget your more limited at present so you've not got as much choice to really get wider (smaller f number) aperture lenses at long focal lengths.

 

[LaughingDove]

IS is image stabilization - its not essential. It is a nice boon to have in a lens and becomes more important the more you go past around 200mm since the longer the focal length the faster the shutter speed you need for a sharp shot when hand holding. However a tripod or even a monopod combined with good shooting posture and fitness can let you shoot long lenses without IS.
good to have but not essential.

STM/USM is the focusing system - USM is (for most lenses I think there are 1 or 2 its not the case) can focus manually all the time even when in AF mode which lets you use AF and manual focusing without having to flick switches. It's also your standard fast motor for focusing. STM is newer but is mostly designed to be fast and quiet for video work (for still its not an issue but noise in videos is a pain).


f number is very important and defines the widest aperture. This affects how much light the lens can let into the camera nd the depth of field. Basically the smaller the f number the more light it can let in and the thinner you can make the depth of field. Because it lets in more light its typically bigger optics and thus a higher price bracket. That's why you see huge prices on things like 400mm f2.8 lenses.


OF course with your budget your more limited at present so you've not got as much choice to really get wider (smaller f number) aperture lenses at long focal lengths.

Cheers!
So since I don't plan to do much videoing, I don't really need to worry too much about the focusing system and I can just focus on other features and the price?

 

[Hix]

BUT what matters are the lenses!!! The big problem when buying cheap kits of a body and 2 lenses are that often the lenses are outdated and bad.

Just to add to what Yassa said, something I was told several years ago which is very true and you should probably keep in the back of your mind: you can buy the best, most expensive camera body in the world, but if you put a crap lens on it you will only ever get crap photos.



Hix

 

[Yassa]

Cheers!
So since I don't plan to do much videoing, I don't really need to worry too much about the focusing system and I can just focus on other features and the price?

No. The point is that the Canon lenses with STM and IS are the newest and best cheap lenses around. The 18-55 IS is not the 18-55 IS STM II, just without STM. It`s a totally different lens, and the newest 18-55 IS STM II is optically far superior then the older versions of the lens. It`s the same with the 55-250 IS STM tele lens. So even if you won`t need the STM or the IS, you still want the optical quality that comes with these newest versions. Do not, under no circumstances, buy older versions of the 18-55 or 55-250 or an old 70-300 tele lens from Tamron or Sigma. There are some really cheap, but also really CRAP lenses around!

 

[LaughingDove]

No. The point is that the Canon lenses with STM and IS are the newest and best cheap lenses around. The 18-55 IS is not the 18-55 IS STM II, just without STM. It`s a totally different lens, and the newest 18-55 IS STM II is optically far superior then the older versions of the lens. It`s the same with the 55-250 IS STM tele lens. So even if you won`t need the STM or the IS, you still want the optical quality that comes with these newest versions. Do not, under no circumstances, buy older versions of the 18-55 or 55-250 or an old 70-300 tele lens from Tamron or Sigma. There are some really cheap, but also really CRAP lenses around!

So is the Canon EF 70-300 mm f/4-5,6 IS USM lens not something you would recommend then?
I think I would like a lens that goes up to 300mm if there are any reasonably affordable and reasonably good ones available.

Is there an easy way to tell how new the lenses are and how good they are (e.g. a website with a list, or a number on the lens)? I hope to be going to a camera shop tomorrow to look at what they have. For example there are a few bodies that come with an 18-55 IS STM but not 18-55 IS STM II so I suppose that's an older lens as well.

 

[Yassa]

The Canon 70-300 IS USM is pretty good. I had it for a while before I got the (much, much more expensive) Canon 70-300 L IS. The 70-300 IS USM is not tack sharp at the end of the zoom range (300 mm), which is where I needed it often, so I got the better L lens once I could afford it.
But for the price tag, the 70-300 IS USM is pretty good, so I can recommend it. However, the 55-250 IS STM is cheaper and at least as good as the 70-300 IS USM, and it is smaller, so my recommendation over the two is the 55-250 IS STM (which I also own and use when I don`t want to carry around a big L lens).

For details on each lens, Canon has a website which lists at least the lenses which are still sold. You can also just google the exact lens details and you`ll find when it was first put on the market. Amazon for example has the information since when a product is listed.

 

[overread]

Don't forget that a shop is likely to mostly stock newer editions of most lenses; esp in the range you're looking at (ergo the most consumer active and easier to sell). So chances are they'll have modern editions.

Also your budget restricts you somewhat on what you can and can't get. I would say a good DSLR with any "kit" lens and then the best 70-300mm that you can afford with the rest.

From there you can make a start learning which is a whole new ballgame. Give it some time after that and then you'll find it a lot easier to understand things like apertures and what they really mean to you in the real world - you'll have a context for things which makes it a lot easier to actually understand what is going on and why some things are good and others not so important.

 

[Hix]

The Canon 70-300 IS USM is pretty good. I had it for a while before I got the (much, much more expensive) Canon 70-300 L IS. The 70-300 IS USM is not tack sharp at the end of the zoom range (300 mm), which is where I needed it often, so I got the better L lens once I could afford it.
But for the price tag, the 70-300 IS USM is pretty good, so I can recommend it. However, the 55-250 IS STM is cheaper and at least as good as the 70-300 IS USM, and it is smaller, so my recommendation over the two is the 55-250 IS STM (which I also own and use when I don`t want to carry around a big L lens).

I haven't tried the 55-250mm IS STM so I can't comment on it, but I used the 70-300mm for many years without any problems - it's a good lens and if it's all that's available to you then it will be money well spent. The only reason I don't used it any more is because I upgraded to the L series version.



Hix

 

[LaughingDove]

The golden rule when it comes to DSLR photography is that the camera body doesn`t matter so much. I don`t think you`d notice a big difference between the 1300D or the 750d; the picture quaility would be almost identical. The 700d would also be fine. Since Canon seems under commercial pressure to update the camera bodies often, there is usually not a lot of difference between models unless you wait a couple of years. I had the 550d for a couple of years and now I have the 750d, and there is a difference. But not a big one, and the difference between a 700d and a 750d would hardly be noticeable.

BUT what matters are the lenses!!! The big problem when buying cheap kits of a body and 2 lenses are that often the lenses are outdated and bad. That`s definately the case with the 2 lenses in the kit you suggested above - don`t buy it! Neither lens has a image stabilisator, which you absolutely want in a tele lens and which is also nice to have in standard zoom lens. Canon and Tamron have developed very good, cheap lenses in the last years; there are a number of versions available because they were updated very often. The newest versions really are the best; not just because they have image stabilisation, but because they are much sharper. You should check very careful what lens you are buying to make sure you have the newest one. What I would recommend you is to get a Canon 18-55 IS STM II or a Canon 18-135 IS STM as standard lens and a Canon 55-250 IS STM as tele lens.

So I went to a camera shop today (two different camera shops actually) but I haven't bought anything yet and I'm still not sure what to buy. The person in the camera shop who I spoke to was adamant that the Canon EOS 1300D + 18-55mm III + Tamron 70-300mm + bag + SD card was what I should get. He said the lenses weren't old and they did have image stabilisation, and although he did say the Canon 70-300 IS USM would have better image quality than the Tamron, he was certain it was not worth 4x the price. If you had not specifically said not to get this set I probably would have. Though I can't see anything about IS when looking them up, despite what he said.

What I was actually thinking about getting when I first went into the shop was an 18-135 IS STM as the kit lens, but this was not available as the kit-lens with any camera and only as a separate lens on their website so it would be considerably more expensive.

So a couple of questions; do you still think the aforementioned kit would not be a good purchase? The two lenses + body were about the same price as the Canon 70-300 IS USM by itself.
And secondly, would it be a problem if I had no lens for 55-70 between an 18-55 and a 70-300?
The other alternative of course is what you recommended of the 18-55 and 55-250, so I need to decide between the two.
Ideally I would get the 18-135 and 70-300, but I don't think I can afford that.

 

[Hix]

Ultimately, it's up to you to decide which lens will do you best. Go for the 750D (not the 1300D) and choose which lens you can afford with the remaining money.

You mentioned swapping lens over being a hassle. I get around that problem by carrying two cameras around - my EOS with the big Zoom on it, and a Canon IXUS which fits in my pocket and I use to take the wide, scenic photos (in zoos I use it mainly for photos of whole exhibits). You already have a bridge camera; you could use it simply for the wider shots and buy the 70-300mm.



Hix

 

[Simon Hampel]

I use a Powerrex/Maha brand charger and they've some good 8 unit options that let you slow charge the batteries. I use mine mostly for AA batteries in flashes which can be drained very quickly by continuous use so its good to have more batteries and then slow charge what are drained overnight.

2) What kind of batteries are you using; the newer memory ones (the ones that are sold pre-charged in a pack) are the best option these days; might be a bit more pricy but well worth the cost esp if you're travelling.

Another vote for the Powerex/Maha chargers ... I have the 4 unit charger and it's pretty amazing what this thing can do. Looking after your rechargeable batteries will see them last a lot longer with fewer problems - makes the investment in expensive rechargeables much more worthwhile.

I only use Sanyo (Panasonic) eneloop AA and AAA batteries ... have had very good success with these and they hold charge really well on the shelf. Have to hunt around to find them at a good price - perhaps look at buying them in bulk to bring the unit price right down.

While I don't use them in my camera anymore (other than in the external flash unit on my DSLR), I do have young kids with a myriad of small battery powered toys - I always keep a bank of batteries charged and ready to swap in to any toy which needs new batteries and I have probably close to 100 of these eneloops in service around the house now.

 

[Yassa]

If the set of the Canon 1300, the 18-55 III and the Tamron 70-300 is the same as in the link you posted a few days ago, then I strongly advise you not to buy it. Neither lens in this set has image stabilisation! If the person in the shop said the Tamron has stabilisation, he lied. All Canon lenses with stabilisation have "IS" in the name and all Tamron lenses with stabilisation have "VC" in the name. The Tamron with VC is new and good, but it costs too much to include it into a package of body plus 2 lenses for only 500 Euros. I still think the canon 55-250 IS Stm is the best way to go for you.

Take your time to choose!

 

[Yassa]

To add, the gap between 55 and 70 mm is not a problem, you wont notice it at all.

 

[LaughingDove]

Ultimately, it's up to you to decide which lens will do you best. Go for the 750D (not the 1300D) and choose which lens you can afford with the remaining money.

You mentioned swapping lens over being a hassle. I get around that problem by carrying two cameras around - my EOS with the big Zoom on it, and a Canon IXUS which fits in my pocket and I use to take the wide, scenic photos (in zoos I use it mainly for photos of whole exhibits). You already have a bridge camera; you could use it simply for the wider shots and buy the 70-300mm.



Hix

You think the 750D over the 1300D? Some other posters on this thread (@Yassa and @overread) said that they thought the lenses were more important and it would be better to get a 1300D to spend more on lenses because the difference between the two bodies wouldn't be so much.

Just out of curiosity, how big is your big zoom? I've seen lots of your wildlife pictures in the galleries and I was wondering how long your focal length is to get those pictures.


As for the lenses, I think I have all of the information I need at this point and it's a matter of deciding which option I want to go with and how far I stretch my budget. Thanks for all the help/suggestions from everyone.

 

[overread]

I think messages got mixed up. Lenses are indeed more important; but I felt that the 1300D is a generally lesser entry level body; the 750D has more potential to last you longer.

In the end some of its a bit of a moot point; you can get great shots with most gear on the current market if you use it right and within its limits; the higher end gear has better features; better quality and less limits - but all gear has limits.