Canon EOS

[Peter Jacobs]

I am looking at buying a replacment to my old Fuji Finepix digital camera.

Not really interested in 'professional' quality Nikons etc, asI only usea camera for record shots, landscapes and riverscapes.

I've been looking at the various models in the EOS range, and am becoming rapidly confused (I am not a techie) so any simple help would be appreciated.

PS,I opted forthe Canon as I can apparently use mySLR Canon lenses with the Canon digital - but I have also been told that you have to multiply the focal length by 1.5 (?) not sure why though.

 

[Paul H]

You can use the lenses, that's the reason I bought a Canon digital after owning a Canon EOS 5 35mm model. The Speedlight flashes are compatible also.

The multiplying focal lengths is because the digital sensor where the film plane used to be is a smaller surface area than 35mm film so it affects the field of view afforded by the lens.

I bought an EOS 350D a few years ago(I think), 7 million pixels. It does what I need it to do, it has a fully manual setting, auto settings of varying complexity and I'll never be blowing images up past standard 10x8 frame size so I don't need a higher resolution camera.

I'd concentrate on getting a resolution suitable for your intended use, the controls on the higher end models are intended for professional photographers, I don't use half the settings on mine even though I know what they're for.

 

[Wobbly Face (As Per Ed)]

I opted for the Canon EOS 400 D, cash back etc and a good deal. 10.1 megapixels and you can shoot in RAW file, gives more scope and control over exposure etc. Still learning this though. Not as good as Nikon but then they are cheaper and the spec not too diferent. Also not as gutted if it gets damp, knocked or what ever as can happen when tacken fishing. I also got a remote for mine.

 

[Mark Wintle]

I still use my 350D which has been superceded by the 400D, 450D and 1000D all in similar price range but increasing pixels. All will do what you want at less than I paid for mine.

The kit lens is cheap and nasty ( a $10 lens) so you need better. Due to the 1.6 multiplier your 35mm lenses are OK towards the telephoto (200mm becomes 320mm) but not the wide angle. Whereas 28mm is modest wide-angle on 35mm that becomes approx 44mm on one of these digitals which is why you need something like a 17-70 for the digital ( I got a nice Sigma in that range for £200+ which has half size macro as a bonus).

I shoot in RAW which gives you a lot of control over processing. A remote is useful as well.

 

[Wolfman Woody]

Am I right in thinking you will also lose autofocus and autoexposure by using old lenses?

Sad as it may seem I'd quit with the old lenses and get new ones. I have a fabulous Vivitar Series One zoom for the old Minolta camera, but time to say goodbye on that one.

The populist camera everyone seems to be raving about right now is the Nikon D90, but Canon have just brought one out similar, the 500D. They have full HD video features, might be nice to include in some FM features in future?????

Splash out and get a good one Peter, you can afford it. You waste enough on those expensive garden canes after all!

Forgot to insert daft smiley thingy first off so /forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif

 

[Mark Wintle]

Jeff,

EOS lenses are compatible. You just can't use digital lenses on 35mm cameras - mirror hits back of lens.

 

[Wolfman Woody]

<blockquote class=quoteheader>Mark Wintle wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>

Jeff,

EOS lenses are compatible. You just can't use digital lenses on 35mm cameras - mirror hits back of lens.</blockquote>

Aghh! He can afford to buy brand new anyway Mark. The man's dripping with money!

/forum/smilies/wink_smiley.gif

He only needs sell that old Barder and a couple of others and he can afford some class kit.

/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Thanks to all for the information, nowI understand about the lenses too, so I guess that is why the digital cameras come with the 18-55 m/m as the 18 now serves as the good old fashioned 28 m/m for wide angle work.

Jeff,

This month I have already splashed out on two new Sage fly rods and an Abel reel, soI am being a little bit 'careful' on the camera.

As I said, I am not in the 'pro' range and agree with Paul that I'd rarely ever use half of the features on the Nikons etc. That said, Graham's Nikon is very 'pretty'

Mark,

The sigma lens sounds like a good idea, thanks.

PS - Jeff,I am being buried with the Barder just in case there is an angler's heaven!

 

[Wolfman Woody]

<blockquote class=quoteheader>Peter Jacobs wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>

PS - Jeff,I am being buried with the Barder just in case there is an angler's heaven!</blockquote>

Be useful in case you find Heaven is "the garden of The Lord", he might be able to use it for his runner beans!

/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif

Anyway, they aren't the "pro" range, just the top end of the "Switch it on and let it do it all for you" range. Nothing too challenging there for you, Peter. Just good models.

/forum/smilies/tongue_out_smiley.gif

 

[Peter Jacobs]

" . . . . . he might be able to use it for his runner beans!"

You have no soul Jeff so you are unlikely to ever find out . . . .

After reading all the notes above, I settled on the EOS 450D and went out and got it before lunch.

Thanks to all.

 

[Wolfman Woody]

Ah! The American Rebel.

My daughter has that one.

 

[dezza]

Why not the Leica S2? A snip at £19 for the body and £20k for a couple of lenses

Just your style 37.5 megapixels.



---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 ----------

Seriously chaps, when I decided to go digital SLR I had a look at a whole lot of cameras in the £600 to £700 price range. No matter how and which way I looked, the Nikon stuff came out top. I had a D80 for a short period of time and then I changed it for a D300 after I had seen and had a go with Graham's D200.

With all due respects, the Canon stuff just doesn't hold a candle to the equivalently priced Nikons, especially when it come to features, user friendlyness, build quality and weatherproofing. The Nikon models have it, and by a long long way.

 

[Paul H]

Cameras are kind of like Marmite - love it or hate it / Canon or Nikon.

When I bought my first auto focus SLR camera the Canons focused significantly faster, much more quietly and a lot more accurately in low light levels or on low contrast subjects.

They were, and still are, lighter than the Nikons too.

I'm not saying Nikons are worse than Canons or vice versa but there are always pros and cons and people have different preferences.

 

[Old Nick]

In the past I have found the EOS superior to the equivalent priced Nikons, better resolution, easier to use, more flexible (I did a fair amount of astrophotography requiring hi ISO ratings and slow timed shutter speeds), and better access to the quality lenses (L series USM).

It is quite probable that the tide has turned in Nikons favour recently, but for me its EOS all the way - and i'll be buggered if I'm coughing up all that dosh again for Nikon bodies and lenses.

Also remember the number of pixels is a bit of a distraction these days as your printer or computer screen will limit the picture quality as they are way below the resolution of most current DSLR's capabilities.

 

[dezza]

I think it's a shame that one of my favourite camera manufacturers - Olympus, have never made the running in the digital field. In my opinion their OM series of SLRs in the 70s and 80s was without peer and I will include Nikon, Canon, Contax and Leica here.

For a short period I owned a OM4 ti, probably the finest and most compact film SLR that ever existed. The Zuiko lenses also had superlative optics.

But the latest Olympus SLR digitals are not compact, have poor features, lousy optics and are darned expensive for what they are. One would have thought that they would have learned lessons from Nikon et al.

 

[Paul H]

The old manual OM range of Olympuses were certainly great cameras, as were many of the Pentax models too.

Working in a photographic retailer for several years, before digital became the norm, the Olympus OM10 and the Nikon FM2 were probably the most popular second-hand manual SLRs we sold.

There is certainly no substitute for a manual camera if you want to teach yourself about some photography basics.

 

[dezza]

Quite frankly I prefer a manual camera as then I know what I am doing and still don't trust auto-focus, even on the most advanced cameras.

I often use full manual on my D300.

I am surprised that the top camera manufacturers do not produce a compact camera with the capability of being used manual.

It should not be beyond any of the top maunufacterers to make a compact digital with the following features:

1: 10 megapixel sensor
2: Fully automatic and manual modes.
3: Instantaneous shutter.
4: Interchangable lenses
5: Eyelevel viewfinder and live view.
6: Built in flash
7: Low noise on High ISO settings.
8: Up to 6 frames/sec.
9: Under £400 with basic 25mm - 200mm zoom lens.

The last thing we want are are those gimmicks such as movie mode which seem to be appearing in even DSLRs these days.

But I suppose Joe Soap rules!

 

[Old Nick]

I use a Leica D lux 2 compact alongside my EOS D30, and it has manual over ride for shutter speed, and aperture plus manual focussing, noise can be a bit of a problem but using Adobe photoshop sorts most of the problems out (theres a filter to counter noise). unfortunately svereal of your other requirements would be outside the remit of a compact camera ie interchangeable lenses which would add to the bulk of the camera, although I think the Leica digital equivalent of their M6 does have interchangeable lenses but misses the price point by quite a large margin!

I must also agree with what you say about manual cameras, my first proper camera was an OM10, then Nikon F2 and F3 followed by the wonderful Leica M6 which was unsurpassed by any other modern manual camera, light, flexible, pocketable, and zeiss lens quality - fantastic bit of kit!

Moved to digital because I was fed up of the horrible chemical smells coming from the spare bedroom and bathroom, although I am thinking of taking up large format photography and producing 5x4 or 10x8 contact prints, much less messy than enlargers!

 

[Paul H]

I kind of miss doing my own prints, never had the equipment at home but we had to do it for my A level and HND courses - black & white and colour prints.

10x8 large format cameras take me back to college days too, I've still got my dark slides somewhere. Fun to an extent but a right pain if you got your lighting set up wrong or messed up the meter reading, expensive boxes of film too, probably even more so now as I bet hardly any is made.

It was always a great feeling when the image started to appear in the developer tray where you could see the eposure was spot on and you'd got any dodging/burning just right.

 

[Old Nick]

I agree Paul, developing your own negs and prints really adds to the creative process and somehow makes the final picture more 'yours'

Consumables for large format photography are quite expensive, but then you put far more thought into each picture, so whereas with 35mm or digital you take as many as you like to capture the right picture, with large format you tend to get one or two goes only, so probably ends up costing about the same in the long run.

Imagine the quality of a 10x8 contact print of your favourite river, lake, fish, etc unbeatable!