Help Wanted in Choosing a New Camera.

LaughingDove said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, get the 750D. Although I haven't seen any of the XXXXD, I have used two of the XXXD
- 400D and currently use the 550D for all my DSLR underwater photos, and so I wouldn't go for the 1300D because I know the features found on XXXD. Yes, the lens is important for getting the image, but the body is important for recording the image.

Although I recently bought the 100-400mm II (like two months ago), most of the photos I've uploaded to ZooChat were taken with the 70-300mm, either the regular one or the L series). Photos of exhibits were usually taken with the IXUS.

My advice is based on what I think would be best for someone starting out with a DSLR based on my experiences with the Canon range. My recommendations are based upon the goods themselves - not the prices, as I have no idea how to speak Euro, and prices where you are could vary considerably from where I am. I suspect this goes for most of the others giving you advice as well. But as I said above, ultimately it's up to you to decide how best to spend your money.

But whatever you get now, know that you will be upgrading both body and lenses in the near future!

:p

Hix
 
The 500 f/8 lens you mentioned (and which someone already explained) is a mirror lens and all of these - regardless of brand - are garbage. It has what looks like a coin glued to the middle of the lens that reflects light back to make it telephoto, but the quality is awful. I had a Sigma 600 f/8 mirror and shot one roll of film with it and threw all the slides in the trash and sold the lens.

As stated, missing the range of 55-70mm is absolutely no problem.

For the record, Canon has just released a new and improved version 2 of the 70-300 USM. I am not sure if it is available in stores yet. Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
The website I linked to (CanonRumors) will have lots of good discussions on Canon lenses.

A larger aperture lens is nice if you can afford it, but they are expensive (even used, since they hold their value). The telephoto zooms you are looking at (55-250 or 70-300) will vary from f4 (or maybe f4.5) at the short end to f5.6 at the telephoto end. As far as I know, there is no constant f4 zoom in this range. The choice would be a non zoom 300 f4, which is an excellent lens (I had one) if you don't need zoom. If you need zoom, then the choice is 70-200 f2.8. I use this, most pros use this, it is great but it is very expensive.

As for 1.4x or 2x teleconverters, they will not work with the lenses you are looking at. They only work (at least for Canon) with professional non zoom lenses and the 70-200 2.8 zoom lens.
 
Arizona Docent said:
For the record, Canon has just released a new and improved version 2 of the 70-300 USM. I am not sure if it is available in stores yet. Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
The website I linked to (CanonRumors) will have lots of good discussions on Canon lenses.
Click to expand...

So if I was to get the Canon 70-300, would you recommend I wait to try and get the newer one rather than the older one? Is the new one probably going to be more expensive?

Also, a post in that CanonRumors page you linked says the Tamron SP 70-300mm f / 4-5.6 Di VC USD is better. That lens is actually slightly cheaper than the Canon lens, would you recommend it?
 
I think the Tamron lens would be fine. Tamron and Sigma (the newer Sigma lenses, not the older ones) are both very good third party lenses. The other major third party brand is Tokina and in my experience they are not sharp, but with Tamron you should be fine. The only potential problem with getting a lens other than Canon is that if you buy a different camera body in the future there is a slight chance a third party lens will not work properly on it. As far as I know, this has been more of an issue with Sigma lenses than Tamron. If you can afford it, the new version 2 Canon would be the way to go (but yes I am sure it will be more expensive).
 
Chances are if you're upgrading in the future you'll be getting a higher grade of lens anyway before a higher grade body so the compatibility issue should be moot point. And a recently bought lens now should remain rechippable for a fair length of time so you can always have it fixed to work if you need to.

Sigma has also recently started rolling out lenses with USB docks (on a special lens cap) which let them reprogram the lens and update its firmwire (this is currently only on their higher end lenses which are worth such an upgrade). It gets around the rechipping need very easily.
 
So I looked some more into the possibilities with Tamron, and found the Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD (wow, that's a lot of letters :p). If I got this lens, I suppose I would just need the one (at least to start with). I had a look at some online reviews and it seems ok, I think? Would you recommend this lens?
 
16 to 300mm is a VAST range for a zoom lens to cover. Yep its a do everything lens; but it will not be that optically outstanding.

It's ideally the kind of lens a for holiday trips where chances are you'd be under 200mm for most of the shots and using 300mm end rarely as it will be software at that end. It's a nice all in one lens, but for what you want its not going to be that good because you'll be wanting the longer end more so.

Zooms are always weaker at the longer focal lengths; high end ones the difference is marginal whilst with ones like that its far more obvious. It's 16-100mm performance is likely pretty good; but beyond that you'll notice the falloff in sharpness and clarity.

It's got a place and a use but I'd not think it a good lens for you given you intentions.
 
overread said:
16 to 300mm is a VAST range for a zoom lens to cover. Yep its a do everything lens; but it will not be that optically outstanding.

It's ideally the kind of lens a for holiday trips where chances are you'd be under 200mm for most of the shots and using 300mm end rarely as it will be software at that end. It's a nice all in one lens, but for what you want its not going to be that good because you'll be wanting the longer end more so.

Zooms are always weaker at the longer focal lengths; high end ones the difference is marginal whilst with ones like that its far more obvious. It's 16-100mm performance is likely pretty good; but beyond that you'll notice the falloff in sharpness and clarity.

It's got a place and a use but I'd not think it a good lens for you given you intentions.
Click to expand...

Sounds like that would be a good lens for use in a zoo then, to go between exhibit pictures and animals that need a bit of a zoom, but not as far away as wild animals. But since if I did get that lens I would not be able to afford any other, it will be something to think about in the future.

At the moment, what I'm thinking about getting is the 750D with the Canon 18-55 IS STM as a kit lens and then either the Tamron 70-300, the Canon 70-300, or the Canon 55-250 as the telephoto lens. I could just about afford that but I think that's it. So in future I could save up to get a lens that has a wider range at the low end such as the 55-135 for zoo photography or improve the tele lens, but that would be at least six months down the line.
 
Last few times I've been to the zoo I've used either a 70-200mm or 120-300mm. The shorter end has some benefit in some situations and exhibits and if you want enclosure shots then sure you need a wider end. But I find most animals (at least mammal and bird) tend to be further away rather than right up close.

You could easily swap lenses for animals and infrastructure (buildings won't go anywhere so you've time to swap lenses); or use your current camera for buildings and the newer for the further off shots.
 
Long lens on your DSLR and use your phone for taking photos of buildings and major features.

My Samsung Galaxy S6 takes pretty impressive photos of things that aren't moving and are well lit. That was one of the reasons I chose that phone - because of its camera.

The only time you'll need something different is in low-light conditions (eg very shaded or indoors) where things are closer and a phone or point-and-shoot camera won't cut it. But then, to avoid using a flash you'll want something like a 24-70 f2.8 lens (or faster) and a decent DSLR body that can go high-ISO shots to maximise your low light capabilities.
 
What overread says is exactly correct about the superzoom lens (16-300). When you get that huge of a zoom range the quality drops dramatically.

I think your current leanings are a very good choice: 18-55 kit lens and a 70-300. If you can afford the Canon version 2 get it, but if not the Tamron is a good alternative.

I also agree with overread on the last suggestion: use the current camera for general building shots and the SLR for animals with the 70-300 attached (and only swap when you absolutely need to because in my experience changing lenses as you go is a pain).
 
Thanks for the replies. I think if I'm still feeling the same way next weekend, giving me a whole week to think it over, I'll go out and buy it.

I really should use the camera on my phone (Lumia 640) more, particularly for stuff like photographing signage at a zoo.
 
LaughingDove said:
I really should use the camera on my phone (Lumia 640) more, particularly for stuff like photographing signage at a zoo.
Click to expand...

It's quick and easy and the quality is easily good enough ... and it's something you're likely to have on you already, so no extra gear required. Do it.
 
Well this is my phone and I guarantee you it is NOT something I am likely to have on me! :p
 

Attachments

  • phone.png
    phone.png
    450.4 KB · Views: 11
I've just bought it! :D
The 750D with the 18-55mm kit lens and the Canon 70-300mm lens, as I wrote above (I made sure they were the right models with IS, etc.)
They had to order it in and it will arrive tomorrow! :D

Thanks again for all the suggestions, advice, and comments from everyone. :)
 
I think I've found a very good solution to the problem of batteries that I brought up right at the beginning of this thread.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/TOP-MAX-Ba...1484914242&sr=1-3&keywords=battery+canon+750d
This has two spare batteries, but also a portable charger that I can charge from a power bank, and since I carry a 10800mAh powerbank around anyway, it will allow me to charge on the go.

The one think I'm slightly concerned about is that is not an official Canon battery or a Canon charger and the price for just one Canon battery from Canon is nearly 3x the price of two batteries and the charger from the other company linked above. Of course it's very likely that the life of the Canon battery would be superior, but I was wondering if using a third party battery could damage the camera in some way? (of course safety and not exploding could also be a concern, but since it's being sold in the EU, it has to meet safety standards)
 
I've used third party batteries in my cameras with no problems.

:p

Hix
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top