What new simple DSLR?

[Ben T]

with the G7 you would probably be more inclined to shoot with the viewfinder, SLR-style, with the GX-80 you'd definitely use the rear screen a lot more, like a compact.

would that be just because I might be more used to/prefer using a viewfinder to a screen, or because the EVF is actually better/more accurate than the screen?

[Woofage]

with the G7 you would probably be more inclined to shoot with the viewfinder, SLR-style, with the GX-80 you'd definitely use the rear screen a lot more, like a compact.

would that be just because I might be more used to/prefer using a viewfinder to a screen, or because the EVF is actually better/more accurate than the screen?

Both the rear screen and EVF show the same view and information. You can therefore shoot without using the rear screen at all if you wish, keeping it folded in for protection if necessary (although I do use a screen protector on my G6). Which method you use is up to you and the camera will switch between them automagically because of the sensor next to the EVF. Putting the camera up to your eye is ultimately better for stability and in bright sunlight you may struggle to see what's on the rear screen anyway. Using the rear screen is good for candid shots and street photography as you can hold the camera in a discreet manner and use the flippy screen to see what's going on. Shooting video is easier with the flippy screen too, plus it makes selfies easy.

[Woofage]

Had a look at the Canon DSLR and that Tamron lens in the flesh and it really is massive, and heavy.
So I'm thinking I might not discount size/lightness as a factor. I'm now considering  this http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/panasonic/lumix-dmc-g7-compact-system-camera-in-black-14-140mm-lens-96733/show.html as a serious option as the fact of a single lens quite appeals, I can't get out of my head that constantly having the 'which lens shall I take with me today' indecision will be annoying. If I was professional and photography was the primary/only purposeof being out that wouldn't be an issue, I'd just take both, but it's not, it's often 'just a day out' primarily with photography along the way.

What's  that  camera/lens combo like then? That lens is 400 quid on its own so it seems like good value.

They do the GX-80 with a 45-150mm lens which has got the in-camera image stabilization but hasn't got a moveable screen and the lens starts at 45mm rather than 14mm ... .am I right in thinking that lens wouldn't be quite as good for shots of subjects that are fairly close to me?

A 45-150 is no good as a general purpose lens; it's too long. OTOH it is a very compact tele zoom (I have one).

That G7 combo looks like a lot of camera for the money. However, it's still not exactly cheap so do consider buying something s/h as an "experience" camera - one that you can sell on in a year or so for little financial loss should you decide to trade up (or sideways to a different system). Personally I'd take a good look at a used Canon 100D like LEE has. Don't know about suitable general walkabout lenses though.

[Biggsy]

Had a look at the Canon DSLR and that Tamron lens in the flesh and it really is massive, and heavy.

You weren't thinking the Tamron 70-300 is general purpose lens?  It's telephoto only, not what most people want on the camera for most of the time.  Normally you'd have a far smaller and lighter lens for general purpose, unless you wanted the higher quality and "speed" of a large-aperture zoom (which are also physically large and heavy, and very expensive) or an "all-in-one" super-zoom.

[mike]

that's a great looking combination of body and lens for daylight stuff.  I'd add a 20mm 1.7 to the shopping list for when it's dark or you want a smaller setup to walk about with.  Like woofage I had a GF1 and loved it, I got a GM5 when MrsMike kept the GF1 and it's a bit too small for my fat hands.

Try handling the G7 and the GX-80, they'll feel very different, but I agree that just having the 45-180 would be too long.

[sojournermike]

Yes, the 20/1.7 is a perfect walk around lens on the micro 4/3 cameras - imho of course

You may notice it's a 40 equivalent.

I think the fujis are worth considering too, but they may cost more

[Ben T]

Had a look at the Canon DSLR and that Tamron lens in the flesh and it really is massive, and heavy.

You weren't thinking the Tamron 70-300 is general purpose lens?  It's telephoto only, not what most people want on the camera for most of the time.  Normally you'd have a far smaller and lighter lens for general purpose, unless you wanted the higher quality and "speed" of a large-aperture zoom (which are also physically large and heavy, and very expensive) or an "all-in-one" super-zoom.

My thought was sort of "If  I'm not cycling, what does it matter", but it's more the need to have to keep interchanging them or decide between them that's as much of a burden as anything.

[Ham]

You are in danger of mixing and matching and ending up choosing on specification something that doesn't stack up in real life.

If you think that your ideal lens is the 14-140 (28 - 280 in 35mm terms) then you are more likely better off with a bridge camera without interchangeable lenses. The superzoom really doesn't provide any depth of field, it is substantially bulky, liable to mechanical damage doe to the extension and as with all superzooms, a compromise. A good compromise as these things go, but still that. At 28mm it isn't particularly wide, and 280 isn't that long. It is a useful addition to a lens bag for, say, holiday snapshots but I would seriously challenge it as  the basis for entry into "serious" photography, which is where you started from.

And yes, changing lenses is a faff, and one I rarely do when out - that's no real hardship, honestly. We'd all like a single lens that delivered perfect results at all focal length and takes up no size and weight, but with out current understanding that's simply a physical impossibility. Instead most people choose a lens for what they are photographing, preferring two cameras over swapping lenses.

If you want an interchangeable lens system, you would be much better starting up with a "kit" lens (typical focal length  equivalent 28-90) and add to that prime lenses for things that interest you.

For example, if you want to do street photography, something in the range of 35-40mm is what you want. The Olympus 17mm (34 equiv) f2.8 gives very good bangs for bucks, and gives results like



and



whereas a 90mm portrait lens lets you do this



and



Likewise, macro, telephoto etc. As in the link that Lee provided, think of a zoom as a collection of primes. It's just that in a 10x zoom, none of them are very good.

[Ben T]

Thanks for the advice Ham, albeit if taken with a pinch of salt , you haven't really explained why it's not a good "entry to serious photography" but I guess it depends on what your definition of "serious photography" is.
I don't imagine the super zoom to be perfect for every scenario and yrs I might eventually get other lenses especially if I ever get the urge to take cuban street portraits.

[Biggsy]

Had a look at the Canon DSLR and that Tamron lens in the flesh and it really is massive, and heavy.

You weren't thinking the Tamron 70-300 is general purpose lens?  It's telephoto only, not what most people want on the camera for most of the time.  Normally you'd have a far smaller and lighter lens for general purpose, unless you wanted the higher quality and "speed" of a large-aperture zoom (which are also physically large and heavy, and very expensive) or an "all-in-one" super-zoom.

My thought was sort of "If  I'm not cycling, what does it matter", but it's more the need to have to keep interchanging them or decide between them that's as much of a burden as anything.

Please ignore all this post if I'm wrong in thinking you're missing something about focal lengths.  Note that I'm quoting for APSC* here.

The reason why I say the Tamron 70-300mm isn't a general purpose lens is not (just) because it's big and heavy, but because it provides no standard view and no wide angle at all, i.e. it is telephoto only.  It is not a super-zoom.  A super-zoom covers wide angle to long telephoto (eg. 18-300mm), and actually some of these are smaller and lighter than the Tamron 70-300 despite covering a much greater range because they are designed with all-day use in mind.  A compromise between a short kit lens and super-zoom, in terms of size and weight and quality and sometimes max-apertures, are the more modest superish-zooms covering 16-135 or 18-200mm, etc.

* APSC (or close variants of APSC) being the format that entry-level/most DSLRs use.  Read up more about focal lengths if you're not well familiar with what sort of focal lengths combined with what sensor formats provide what sort of viewing angles.  Be careful about whether 35mm film equivalents are being quoted and understand how to convert to and from them.

[Ham]

Thanks for the advice Ham, albeit if taken with a pinch of salt , you haven't really explained why it's not a good "entry to serious photography" but I guess it depends on what your definition of "serious photography" is.
I don't imagine the super zoom to be perfect for every scenario and yrs I might eventually get other lenses especially if I ever get the urge to take cuban street portraits.

I'd use the term  "serious photography" as the process of using photography equipment to improve the quality of images to your own satisfaction in contrast to pointing the camera and pressing the shutter (although that can create good images too, I'm not denigrating that, just for purposes of comparison)

The reason it isn't as good is that it will perform unsatisfactorily at all levels, compared with better optics, convenience is the only beneficial quality but a dedicated camera is better for that (eg, Lumix ). That's why I say that if you think a superzoom satisfies what you are looking for - nothing wrong with that - look at other than replaceable lens cameras. You will lose little if anything as you can get a decent dedicated camera for the value of the 14-140.

ETA, the sample images are ones you would struggle to recreate on a superzoom, although you would get close with the street photos.

[Biggsy]

Thanks for the advice Ham, albeit if taken with a pinch of salt , you haven't really explained why it's not a good "entry to serious photography" but I guess it depends on what your definition of "serious photography" is.

Ham did mention depth of field and that is the main issue.  You don't get large apertures and therefore great control over DOF with super-zooms (and many other sorts of zooms as well).  General image quality and distortion are also factors, but image quality is basically good with all modern lenses, and distortion can be corrected for.  However, you could pop on a small prime lens for the odd portrait or whatever, and use the super-zoom for the rest of the time.  Still it would be wise just to get a kit lens to begin with and get experience before making the more expensive choices.

[Ham]

Indeed, but I would put image quality as less obvious but more significant in the difference between super zoom (and many kit zooms) and decent primes. I chose the first photo for the resolution retained in the girl's dress (although looking, in the 640 version it's gorn anyhow), the second for the low light resolution and detail, the other are much more clearly impossible with anything but a decent prime.

But of course, there's a thing - if all you are doing is looking on a PC monitor, does it make that much difference anyway?

[Ben T]

Thanks for the advice Ham, albeit if taken with a pinch of salt , you haven't really explained why it's not a good "entry to serious photography" but I guess it depends on what your definition of "serious photography" is.
I don't imagine the super zoom to be perfect for every scenario and yrs I might eventually get other lenses especially if I ever get the urge to take cuban street portraits.

I'd use the term  "serious photography" as the process of using photography equipment to improve the quality of images to your own satisfaction in contrast to pointing the camera and pressing the shutter (although that can create good images too, I'm not denigrating that, just for purposes of comparison)

The reason it isn't as good is that it will perform unsatisfactorily at all levels, compared with better optics, convenience is the only beneficial quality but a dedicated camera is better for that (eg, Lumix ). That's why I say that if you think a superzoom satisfies what you are looking for - nothing wrong with that - look at other than replaceable lens cameras. You will lose little if anything as you can get a decent dedicated camera for the value of the 14-140.

ETA, the sample images are ones you would struggle to recreate on a superzoom, although you would get close with the street photos.

I figure if you think it will "perform unsatisfactorily at all levels" then you must have much more connoisseur eyes than mine then because the sample photos I've seen in reviews of it look great to me. Your comment about PC monitors supports this.
My criteria are: (1) want to take be able to take close ups of wildlife (i.e. have long zoom), (2) want to be reasonable general purpose i.e. don't want to only be able to take photos of things far away, (3) don't want to have to keep swapping lenses to do (1) and (2), and, (4) want it to be an ILC, because (eventually) I may want to experiment with different lenses.
I totally get that you wouldn't buy the 14-140 yourself as it wouldn't capture images that would satisfy your particular artistic tendencies but if you can suggest something else that fits my criteria (or explain why my criteria are unreasonable) then I'm all ears.

[Ben T]

Thanks for the advice Ham, albeit if taken with a pinch of salt , you haven't really explained why it's not a good "entry to serious photography" but I guess it depends on what your definition of "serious photography" is.

Ham did mention depth of field and that is the main issue.  You don't get large apertures and therefore great control over DOF with super-zooms (and many other sorts of zooms as well).

Right, I get that. But we're talking depth of field at the short end of the zoom range, right?
The widest aperture of the 14-140 at the long end of the focal length is f5.6 which is the same as the much larger tamron 70-300 at the long end of its focal range.
So by a "large" aperture, you mean < f2.0, right?

[Ham]

I totally get that you wouldn't buy the 14-140 yourself as it wouldn't capture images that would satisfy your particular artistic tendencies but if you can suggest something else that fits my criteria (or explain why my criteria are unreasonable) then I'm all ears.

'ere you go then http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/cameras-and-camcorders/digital-cameras/compact-and-bridge-cameras/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz72eb-k-bridge-camera-21660641-pdt.html

200 Spondulics. Not an ILC, but (potentially) better at what it does than an ILC with a superzoom. Gives you room and time to develop your own ideas,  when you want to you buy an ILC, by that time you'll have a much better idea of what it is you expect from the camera. Then, every time you want the super zoom, you don't swap lenses, you pick up the old camera.

Something a bit more special? http://www.johnlewis.com/panasonic-dmc-fz330ebk-bridge-camera-with-25-600mm-leica-lens-4k-ultra-hd-12mp-24x-optical-zoom-4x-digital-zoom-wi-fi-oled-live-viewfinder-3-vari-angle-touch-screen-splash-dustproof/p2227348 that's 25-600 with f2.8 aperture all the way through the range

Both of those give you a better wide angle and a better telephoto (focal length wise) than the 28-270, the more expensive one gives you splash proof as well, - that's a real big deal that you will otherwise only see on pro level D-SLR. That's a couple selected almost at random, there are many to choose from.

Both illustrate my point that if a superzoom is your prime use (I use one, too) an ILC isn't the way to go.

[Biggsy]

But of course, there's a thing - if all you are doing is looking on a PC monitor, does it make that much difference anyway?

Only for cropping, or zooming in when viewing (which I like to do a lot, but I guess most people don't so much).

I used to get obsessed with image quality when choosing and using lenses and pore over MTF charts, but in the end I find variations in stability and focusing accuracy (due to no fault of the lens, necessarily) dwarf fine variations from actual lens quality.  Yes I should still get more detail on average with better lenses, but I rarely notice it.  Too often even in tests I suspect they've misfocused when the detail is fuzzy.  I know still some modern lenses are really soft, though, and some are appalling away from the centre when not stopped down.  It doesn't help that slight centering defects are common with budget zooms.

[T42]

@Ben T if you're still trying to decide, you're probably well confused by now.  Have a look here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

Ken Rockwell isn't everyone's cuppa but I've followed his advice re purchases on several occasions and not regretted it yet.

[Biggsy]

Ham did mention depth of field and that is the main issue.  You don't get large apertures and therefore great control over DOF with super-zooms (and many other sorts of zooms as well).

Right, I get that. But we're talking depth of field at the short end of the zoom range, right?
The widest aperture of the 14-140 at the long end of the focal length is f5.6 which is the same as the much larger tamron 70-300 at the long end of its focal range.
So by a "large" aperture, you mean < f2.0, right?

I should have said larger rather than large apertures, as every bit counts - not just for depth of field control, but also simply for the amount of light gathered, which can be important in low light or when you want fast shutter speeds.

It's about what's in the middle of the ranges as well as the ends.  Not always, but you tend to get a larger max aperture for a given focal length when the overall range is smaller (for the class of lens).  When comparing a 14-140 to a 70-300, the question is what are the apertures within the overlapping range?: at 70mm, 80mm, 100mm, and so on up to 140mm, not beyond.  (A review/report/manual may be needed to find out).

Except for those with a fixed max aperture throughout the whole focal length range, zoom lenses have the max apertures go down in steps within the range.

[rogerzilla]

All DSLRs have a simple mode (a green square on the mode dial, or similar) where the camera makes all the decisions for you.  It works most of the time as long as the lighting isn't too challenging or you want to pick a particular part of the scene to be in focus and it isn't the one the camera thinks is the most important one.

The important thing has always been to choose the right system, since camera bodies come and go but a bunch of lenses costs a lot more.  I wish I'd bought Nikon back in the 1980s instead of Minolta, because Minolta changed their lens mount for AF and then disappeared altogether - Nikon have preserved backwards compatibility and are still very much with us.

[T42]

All DSLRs have a simple mode (a green square on the mode dial, or similar) where the camera makes all the decisions for you...

Most DSLRs. Nikon's pro DSLRs don't waste space on a mode dial.  I still curse them for waiting until D300/s users had all upgraded to full frame before they brought out a pro-interface successor. In the meantime I had bought a D600, which has the amateur interface and fewer AF points than the D300s had. Meh.

[Ben T]

Have gone and bought the G7 mirrorless with 14-140 lens because I'm going away on thurs and want to take it.

Been out and had a play with it today.

this pic was having a play with fast shutter speed because this duck was splashing about catching an eel.
The shutter speed was 1/1300. Not sure if the same effect could have been got with slightly slower shutter? The camera has obviously ramped the ISO up to compensate.
It wasn't that bright, sunny-ish but broken cloud and slight tree cover. And this was fairly zoomed in, this duck was quite far away, probably at least 10 m at a guess, which doesn't sound far but ducks aren't that big.
Would slightly slower shutter/thus lower ISO resulted in better quality, if so how? Not that I'm complaining, connoisseurs may be able to spot imperfections but it's certainly got enough wow factor to please me.



these are my best examples of DOF-control/background blurring. Probably because these are the ones where the background is far away from the subject compared to how far the subject is from me. Helps that geese aren't timid at all, they were about 1m away here.



I mean these pics aren't brilliant, they don't 'tell a story' so to speak but they were basically just the result of going out locally purely to play with the camera rather than getting the camera out in response to there being something good to take a photo of.



https://goo.gl/photos/uDqfGRFwxYLvycG79

General thoughts are it's not too bad for convenience. I've got a small-ish lowepro bag which it fits in with the lens hood on. It can take photos of things near to me, and it can zoom in with reasonable power on creatures.
The thing is we go on holidays where we will go on days out where there will be the opportunity for both in one day out. Whilst it might be convenient to take two lenses on the whole holiday, and to choose one for each day out, it might not be so convenient to swap during the day. From my experiments today this lens suits that requirement so I think it's a reasonable buy in that respect.
What might also be nice is a smaller lens for an evening out, after sunset, but where most of the shots may be in a restaurant or a night-market or something. Not sure between the 25mm and the more expensive 20mm apparently which the only advantage of is it's smaller, but the camera body is fairly bulky anyway and I would only gain a convenience advantage with an easier-to-carry bag anyway, don't really need to make that purchase yet.

[Woofage]

Good photos there. Looks like you've got off to a great start  .

[Ben T]

Cheers 

[frankly frankie]

That Pana 10:1 zoom does have an excellent reputation, more than decent image quality and remarkably compact.  It's one of the best of its type in any interchangable lens system.

And you can use it to find where your personal 'sweet spot' is in terms of focal length.  After you've taken a hundred shots or so, analyse the focal lengths you're using the most.  Then you might consider getting a 'better' lens that majors on that length (though it would probably be expensive).  For example I've always known my own 'sweet spot' is around the 40-45mm mark (on a Panasonic, so that's 85mm in old money - the classic 'portrait' focal length though I never ever shoot portraits).  That might lead me to lust after the 42.5mm prime, but actually (a) I'm too mean and (b) I value the convenience of zooms very highly, so the little 35-100 zoom suits me very well.