Suggestions, please

[sleeping]

I noticed on my current crappy Kodak, it says the lens is 34-102mm, so with an 18-55 will I be able to shoot out in the yard as well, or will I have to get into the action and/or buy another lens to capture that stuff better?

The equivalent focal length on your Kodak is for a full frame camera, not the smaller sensor on cheaper DSLRs. The smaller sensor means those 18-55 kit lenses are the approximate equivalent of a 28-85mm lens on full frame – it may be less different to your current camera than you’re thinking.

Oh, and if your dad’s camera is an Autofocus Minolta, some of the stuff he has might be compatible with the current Sony DSLRs as they basically adopted a lot of Minolta’s technology to start with (the older manual Minolta stuff is not easy to use digitally, though).

[LeicaLens]

Olympus point-and-shoots are supposed to be rugged. However, I think they all use proprietary XD cards, which are a bit slow. Also, cheaper card readers don’t have XD slots, but if you are going to load your pictures directly from the camera to computer, that won’t be a problem.

If you are looking at a second-hand DSLR instead, Olympuses are not a bad deal. I don’t live in the US, so I am not sure about pricing there, but I have seen second-hand E-410s with a 14-42mm F3.5.5.6 standard lens for 21000 yen (250 dollars?).

The E510 is about the same secondhand, and comes with built-in image stabilization. Also, Olympus lenses tend to be cheaper and lighter than Canon or Nikon lenses because they don’t require the IS in the lens.

Furthermore, Olympus DSLRS use CF cards, although some use CF and XD (like my E-520), so you don’t have the problem of the proprietary XD card. Also, they are pretty easy to use, and being able to set the controls through the back panel is pretty nifty.

On the downside, Olympuses don’t handle noise any near as well as Canons and Nikons, and the image quality isn’t, I think, as good. Also, except for the higher end Olympuses, they only have three focussing points, which means the AF is poor in certain situations. The E-3, E-30, E-620 are the exceptions to this (and hopefully the new model they look set to announce will be as well…).

Also, the Fourthirds system is marketed as being “double” 35mm film, meaning that, for example, a 50mm lens functions as a 100mm lens, due to cropping. However, I don’t think this is true. I have a F1.4 25mm Leica-licensed lens (hence my handle here) for my Olympus DSLR which is not at all equivalent to my F1.4 50mm zuiko lens I have on my OM-1 film camera. With the Leica lens, the depth or perspective is the same as a 25mm lens on a film camera, but the width is the same as a 50mm.

In conclusion, I will be sticking with Olympus DSLRs (they have some great lenses), but if I won the lottery, I would be buying myself a Canon 5D Mark II with sexy lenses to match (the F1.2 85mm, anyone?).

Just a few thoughts.

[sleeping]

With the Leica lens, the depth or perspective is the same as a 25mm lens on a film camera, but the width is the same as a 50mm.

You definitely can’t get the same exact behavior with regards to DOF and field of view when you change format, but it’s not quite that drastic – the DOF for a 25mm on 4/3rds will be somewhere between a 25mm and 50mm on full frame (probably be somewhere around the same as a 35mm).

The DOF increases substantially for smaller formats because of the shorter focal length, but you lose some of that compared to a lens of the same focal length on a larger format because of encreased enlargement (due to the sensor being smaller).

[LeicaLens]

You definitely can’t get the same exact behavior with regards to DOF and field of view when you change format, but it’s not quite that drastic – the DOF for a 25mm on 4/3rds will be somewhere between a 25mm and 50mm on full frame (probably be somewhere around the same as a 35mm).

I can’t say I measured the DOF scientifically, so you might well be right. I just held up my DSLR Olympus with a 25mm (supposed to be equivalent to 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera) and looked through the finder, then did the same with my OM-1 with a 50mm on it. So scientific it certainly wasn’t.

I just compared the 25mm DSLR lens with my 28mm OM lens, and the DOF seems pretty similar. By DOF here, I mean the distance the object in the viewfinder appears to be at, or, if you like, the ratio at which the object (in this case the TV) appears to fill the frame.
Hey, science isn’t my strong point!

Incidentally, at the same ISO settings and aperture settings, the two cameras give pretty different shutter speed readings for equivalent lenses (25mm on the DSLR, 50mm on the SLR).
Again, this wasn’t a particularly rigourously conducted scientific test 😉

[andyofne]

Is this still an active topic?

I have heard very good things about the Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX3. One of the local flickr guys bought one and started bringing it on our flickr walks instead of his DSLR. I think the primary selling point is the LEICA lens.

It’s a little pricey and I am contemplating picking one up myself but what I really need is a flash for my XTi. So, I can spend $450 on a nice pocket P&S or $400-ish on a flash. I really, really can’t stand the built in pop-up flash on the XTi. It’s virtually worthless (imo).

[Author]

Posts