Having Multiple Camera Systems

[ehud.eshet]

Currently all I have is a Canon SX100 IS point and shoot.
In the film era, I had a Pentax SLR with 28-80 cheap lens (abandoned when went digital).

My wife takes more than 100 snapshots and several videos per month.
We want a better camera and can afford spending up to 4000$

We do not make money of photography.
Most of the snapshots are of our family.
At least half are taken indoor (low light).
About 5% are in low light plus long distance such as performance on stage.
Most of the rest is outdoor.

My wife wants a small camera and I want fast lenses.

What do you say about the following combination:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Canon 600D + 50mm f/1.4 + 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II
[*]Panasonic GF3 + Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 + Leica Summilux DG 25mm f/1.4
[/list]

This combination provides:

• Extremely small camera for standard distance.
• Fast lenses on both 50mm and 80mm (35 equivalence).
• Best zoom on 100-300 (35 equivalence).

On the other hand, investing in two different camera systems costs money.

Any comments?
Any better alternative with similar cost ?

 

[Cornershot]

I wouldn't call the 70-200 2.8 a compact system and many venues won't let audience members shoot with anything that looks like a professional camera. A big white bodied lens kind of stands out. And if you're shooting ballet, 2.8 won't be enough to freeze action anyways.

Your Canon option has no wide angle, which most people use more than a long zoom, especially inside. Remember that the 600D has a cropped sensor so a 50mm lens is more like 70mm. Maybe use a fast prime for shooting stage performances. A 100mm f2 is fairly cheap, very fast and relatively light. A 135 is even better but far more expensive. A 17-55 2.8 is a nice wide angle for crop sensors and a good walk around lens.

 

[jimmy156]

I have one overiding feeling when reading your post, and please don't take this the wrong way.

It seems that you want to go from a compact camera, to $4000 worth of kit to take "snapshots" of your family. That just seems crazy to me. If you have no interest in photography and learning how to use the kit to get the best results, you really wont see much benefit from having all that expensive gear! A 70-200 2.8 is a big beast, you wont be able to just pick it up and start taking great shots with it without and pratice/experience, and if your not interested in photography per se, i would imagine you would get fed up pretty quick!

 

[AJ]

I agree with cornershot.

How about: 600D
17-55/2.8 IS
85/1.8 or 100/2

I've shot weddings, family gatherings, and gone traveling for months on end with a similar setup. It's very versatile and will net you great image quality. I'd add 55-250/4-5.6 IS for general outdoor telephoto shooting.

If the 17-55/2.8 IS is too big and heavy then consider Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC. Deadly sharp, small, under-the-radar lens that delivers again and again.

 

[thepancakeman]

I don't quite understand the purpose for going with 2 different systems here, and off the cuff the biggest downside is that you are buying 4 lenses but only get use of 2 depending on which body you use. If you are within a single system, then you don't have to worry about which lens goes with which body--you get 4 lenses (budget and interest permitting) that cover any situation you can come up with regardless of which body you are using.

As to particulars, I'm going to have to disagree with jimmy156--the 70-200 2.8 is an incredible lens, and I have on many many occasions just handed it to a random person and said "here, try this" and they fall in love instantly (and are able to take decent shots without "practice/experience".) I don't shoot a lot indoors, and with that being said I almost never take the 70-200 off the camera.

For indoors, AJ's recommendation of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a solid lens. It is not going to deliver the IQ (image quality) of something like the 24-105/4.0L, but based on your description of what your doing with it I'm guessing the extra range of the Tamron would be more important to you the ultimate quality.

I realize this doesn't answer all your questions, but hopefully it'll at least help you narrow things down or give you things to think about.

$4000? Happy shopping!!

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

Photography is an exercise in compromises when we have a fixed, limited budget. That is true when one has to feed one system alone, let alone two. And since you mentioned that your wife wants a compact camera, my advice would be to go with the GF3. It seems like it would be a nice, capable body and the lens selection is pretty solid on the wide and normal range. The long range is lacking very fast choices but the 40-150 and 100-300 are pretty good lenses and while in low light you'd have to bump the ISO pretty high, it should work for those 5%.

 

[epsiloneri]

For indoors, AJ's recommendation of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a solid lens. It is not going to deliver the IQ (image quality) of something like the 24-105/4.0L, but based on your description of what your doing with it I'm guessing the extra range of the Tamron would be more important to you the ultimate quality.

The IQ of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC lens is actually very good and well on par with the 24-105/4.0L lens on a crop body. The downsides are a noisy focus motor, no IS (the VC version is apparently not as good) and limited build quality, but the IQ and price are outstanding and as such an incredible value.

 

[Cornershot]

I had a Tamron 17-50 non vc and it was a great lens. For the money, maybe one of the best EFS lens deals, though the autofocus is pretty loud. I kind of wish Tamron had gone for a quieter motor instead of the VC. The 24-105 is also great but for full frame cameras. On a crop camera, it's not as useful a range. Whereas the 17-50 is like having the 24-70, which I think is the most useful general ff lens.

 

[Dave]

Forget the multiple camera systems. Choose one and stay there...

I'd start with :
- 600D Kit 18-135 (a quite good lense for long distance also)
- a 50mm 1,8 for low light (imo THE lense with the best price performance ratio)

This is about 1000 Euros. Spend the another 300 Euros in additional Equipmet (tripod etc) and then START SHOOTING!!!
For the rest of the money: Take your wife and book a good holiday. An L-Lense for family-photography is like a 747 for delivering an envelope to they guy next door: Nonsense!

Good photos you'll shoot with your creativity and NOT with your super duper expensive Equipment with red rings.

The best L-Lense won't help you to make good photos if you are not able to use it. And the best way to learn how to use a camera is to learn to work with LIMITATIONS.
If you REALLY want learn quickly: Buy a body and just a Canon 1,4 50mm. It's a great lense. But it has just a "sneakers zoom".

regards, Dave

 

[thepancakeman]

For indoors, AJ's recommendation of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a solid lens. It is not going to deliver the IQ (image quality) of something like the 24-105/4.0L, but based on your description of what your doing with it I'm guessing the extra range of the Tamron would be more important to you the ultimate quality.

The IQ of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC lens is actually very good and well on par with the 24-105/4.0L lens on a crop body. The downsides are a noisy focus motor, no IS (the VC version is apparently not as good) and limited build quality, but the IQ and price are outstanding and as such an incredible value.

Ya know, to be fair, our initial comparison between these two left us using the 24-105 almost exclusively (between these two lenses that is) but as I sit here thinking about it I cannot say for sure that it actually was IQ and not other things such as motor noise, focus speed, etc. ??? I may have to break the Tamron out again and do a little more head to head comparison on them.

 

[afira]

I can't think of a single woman than would willingly carry a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II around her neck or in her lap plus a handbag and camera bag during performances for her children, specifically those requiring her to stand to applaud every so often and keep that massive thing from hitting the poor patron sitting in front of her. It is a beast of a zoom. You'll also have difficulty in keeping up with the action without a flash.

I also agree with Cornershot, I've been prevented from bringing my big white into concerts unless I flash a media badge.

I would personally suggest a very good low-light video camera (Sony or Canon) around the $800-$1200 mark, use this for performances as you'll pick up more continuous action, still be able to obtain stills, be able to cart it around one-handed or place it on a tripod for performances, put it in her 'larger' purse and have less flash distraction. Then pick up a small compact for $400, and a small starter DSLR around $800-$1200 with kit lenses, possibly with a range of lenses (like the 50mm f/1.8 for $50) and equipment like tripods, bags and accessories around $400-$600. Low-end wise, you'll be looking at $2800 as opposed to $4000.

 

[Loswr]

Hi, and welcome!

First off, $4K is a hefty budget, but any budget should be spent wisely. I'll echo a previous comment and say that I hope you are planning to devote time to learning about exposure, light, and how to use them creatively. Else, you may just be better off with a P&S. Ok, enough soapbox - I'll suggest a lineup based on a $4K budget, followed by the rationale. I'm trying to be pretty comprehensive and so you'll see things that I think will really improve your captures, but that you might not otherwise be thinking about.

Canon T3i - $700
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS w/ hood - $1150
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 w/ hood - $425
Canon Speedlite 430EX II w/ StoFen Omnibounce - $300
Eneloop 4 AA + charger kit - $15
Manfrotto 190XProB+496RC2 kit - $200
Canon PowerShot S95 - $370
Canon Vixia HF M40 - $650
Sandisk 8 GB SDHC cards x6 (3 2-pk) - $120
DxO Optics Pro Standard - $120

TOTAL = $4050 (not incl. $35 in Manfrotto rebates); all prices are current from B&H (you might find better deals)

Now, why am I recommending all this?

T3i - Good IQ (same sensor as 7D), relatively small/light for a dSLR. Good choice there, more of your budget should be lenses than bodies.

17-55mm - IMO, the best general purpose zoom for a crop body. It was the first lens I bought (with my T1i), and now, a 7D, 5DII, and 9 L-series lenses later, it's still my go-to walkaround lens for the 7D. Fast, great focal range indoors, IS.

85mm f/1.8 - great for portraits of family, great for low light. Why not the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II? I have that lens and love it...on my 5DII. On APS-C, it's too long indoors, and for stage performances, f/2.8 just isn't fast enough. IS doesn't help much with action, you need a wide aperture to stop action in low light. The 135mm f/2L is also great for that, but much more expensive and too long for convenient portraits on APS-C. For $75 more, you could get the 100mm f/2 instead, almost a twin but I'd recommend the 85mm.

430EX II - indoors, sometimes you need flash, period. Even at ISO 3200 on my 5DII with the 85mm f/1.2L II, sometimes I need flash (f/1.2 gives enough light, but at the cost of a depth of field about as thin as an eyelash - not kidding). The T3i has a pop-up flash, which is nice if you're a big fan of the deer-in-headlights plus redeye look. I'm not. The 430EX II allows bouncing off the ceiling for flattering light, and also provides a more subtle AF assist (red/IR, vs. the series of main strobes from the popup or 270EX, and you can use the AF assist even if you don't fire the flash).

Eneloops - best rechargeables, period. NiMH also means faster flash recycle times (my 430EX II can keep up with the 8 fps burst rate of my 7D, for several shots).

Manfrotto tripod/ballhead - you might not think you need a tripod, but you do. It's a key to getting sharp shots, and can help you sharpen your skills, too, by slowing you down a bit so you think about your shots. Also, *you* are a part of your family. Don't leave yourself out of every shot. If you get a cheap tripod, it will be inconvenient and you won't use it. IMO, Manfrotto is the best compromise between quality and value.

PowerShot S95 - a great camera that really is small. The small interchangeable body with pancake lenses is smaller than a dSLR, but still not go-everywhere small. The S95 fits in a pocket, has a very good f/2 lens (28-105mm equivalent), and a large sensor (for a P&S, that is, same sensor as the more expensive G12), meaning better IQ and low light performance. It shoots RAW for more post-processing flexibility.

Vixia HF M40 - you mentioned shooting several videos per month. Yes, the T3i has video. So does the GF3, and the S95. But they aren't video cameras. Shooting decent video with a dSLR requires a lot of hardware - a steadycam, external mic, etc., you won't get quality movies by just pushing the button. The GF3 is better, but manual controls are very limited, and the ergonomics are quite bad for video. The M40 uses the same sensor as the top-of-the-line consumer ($1500) and low-end pro ($2K) camcorders (sense the theme? You get a lot of IQ bang for less buck with my recommendations of lower end gear with higher end sensors.). It's a large sensor (again, large for a camcorder), meaning good low-light performance. I have the M41 version, a bit more on-board storage (but I usually use the SDHC cards anyway), and an electronic viewfinder which I like, but could live without. Bottom line, if you want to shoot decent video conveniently, get a camcorder.

SDHC cards - I recommend more and smaller rather than few and larger. That way, you have enough memory for a longer trip, but normally you can shoot on one card, then swap and have a backup on the card while you process the images/movies, then alternate and repeat.

DxO - you'll want to shoot RAW, and thus you need a RAW to JPG converter. RAW is like a digital negative. Yes, files are bigger - but storage is cheap. With a RAW file, you can adjust exposure, white balance, etc., with little or no penalty on IQ. More importantly, noise reduction is *much* more effective on a RAW file than on a JPG, and DxO is much better at it than Canon's free DPP. DxO claims two stops better, and that's been my experience. So, ISO 3200 on the T3i and ISO 800 on the S95 will come out very useable.

Long response, I know...but, my goal was to recommend a complete package, not use the whole budget on body/lenses and have you go over for important accessories.

Hope that helps, and good luck with your decisions!

 

[gmrza]

85mm f/1.8 - great for portraits of family, great for low light. Why not the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II? I have that lens and love it...on my 5DII. On APS-C, it's too long indoors, and for stage performances, f/2.8 just isn't fast enough. IS doesn't help much with action, you need a wide aperture to stop action in low light. The 135mm f/2L is also great for that, but much more expensive and too long for convenient portraits on APS-C. For $75 more, you could get the 100mm f/2 instead, almost a twin but I'd recommend the 85mm.

Out of interest, which lenses would you recommend as the ideal ones for stage action?

[/quote]
Funnily, I've hit a creative limitation with the 430EX (we have the original version) in that when working in portrait orientation you cannot bounce the flash behind you because the head won't rotate past 90 degrees. Admittedly that is starting to become an esoteric requirement, but a lot of photographers rely on being able to bounce their flash behind them. This may or may not be an issue, and the 580EXII is considerably more expensive.

 

[Loswr]

Out of interest, which lenses would you recommend as the ideal ones for stage action?

Funnily, I've hit a creative limitation with the 430EX (we have the original version) in that when working in portrait orientation you cannot bounce the flash behind you because the head won't rotate past 90 degrees. Admittedly that is starting to become an esoteric requirement, but a lot of photographers rely on being able to bounce their flash behind them. This may or may not be an issue, and the 580EXII is considerably more expensive.

Depends on proximity to the stage, I suppose, but I'd say the 135L is probably best suited for stage action (or the 200/2L if money is no object, yeah, right...), assuming you want to capture an individual or two. The 35L does very well for an ensemble, wide enough FOV that even wide open, DoF is not too thin from that distance.

Indeed. The 430EX II is the same, and I have no idea what possessed Canon to make it rotate the wrong direction (i.e. the 180° part of the rotation should have been the other way). I find that a StoFen or better yet, a Rogue Flashbender, can help in those situations.

 

[gmrza]

Depends on proximity to the stage, I suppose, but I'd say the 135L is probably best suited for stage action (or the 200/2L if money is no object, yeah, right...), assuming you want to capture an individual or two. The 35L does very well for an ensemble, wide enough FOV that even wide open, DoF is not too thin from that distance.

What I was thinking, if you want to go a little wider than the 135L, the 85 f/1.2L may be a problem due to the slow autofocus - geared down for precision. Would the 85 f/1.8 be a better bet in your view?

 

[afira]

I'd agree with most of what Neuro says on this, however, I'll note where I disagree:

On all of the suggestions, I believe ehud will need to answer a few queries:
What is your actual level of experience in photography? Do you feel competent in manual settings, adjusting ISO, aperture and white balance?
Are you happy with pictures as they come out from a P&S?
What problems do you have with the P&S you have? (Pictures too dark, blur, colours are off)
Do you currently own or do any post-processing?
How comfortable are you with doing post-processing?
Can either of you sufficiently manage the picture tools from your Windows/Apple default picture browser?
What is your wife's experience with a camera?
What are the key things your wife is looking for in a camera, other than being light?
Is this something either of you will take up as more than a hobby?
Why is the need for a possible DSLR coming up?
What is the limitation you are facing with the current P&S you have?
Is this something you will also be taking with you on vacations to the Sahara, Amazon jungle or the Swiss Alps?
Will your camera and setup require weather protection or sealing?
Do you want to take your P&S underwater?

I like the Rebels in general, they're good solid cameras and have nice up to date sensors and good return for investment. The weight and size is also a massive benefit to me, particularly for being small and having small hands.

I don't necessarily agree with Neuro on the need for the 17-55 or the 85mm, but that's only because I don't agree with purchasing them initially. I personally would suggest the kit lenses until you and your wife are comfortable with what you have and require more from the DSLR. If you and your wife are decidedly more advanced and want the good lenses now, then aim for the higher end 10-22, 17-55, 50, 85, 70-200, etc.

The flash, I'm mixed about, I agree with buying a separate flash, but I'd wait for a year after you purchase the camera. Reason? Imminent announcements for new flashes, supposedly, which should drop the prices and give you more options. Additionally - for what its worth, possible wireless controls... maybe that's just wishful thinking. I went for the 580EX II, but I wanted massive power, and the ability to slave smaller flashes when I needed them.

For pictures of children and family at the hobby level and not pro-sumer level, I personally feel that RAW is a hindrance more than a help. Typically, most families are distributing the files as jpegs not RAW for family photos. The added hassle of manipulating and converting isn't worth the hassle. While a photographer would have better control, consistency and images from shooting RAW, it, in my opinion, isn't needed for this type of application. For the most part, jpeg is capable of capturing excellent images and can have IQ that is close to on par with RAW. If they decide to take the photography up to the next level, go pro-sumer or sell photos, then work from RAW.

 

[epsiloneri]

Hope that helps, and good luck with your decisions!

I must say I am impressed by your detailed and well-researched response. I hope people realise how valuable you are to this forum and community, taking the time and effort to respond to beginner's questions that are probably not that interesting to you.

I'd agree with most of what Neuro says on this, however, I'll note where I disagree:

I agree with you both, and the reason is the inherent contradiction in being "beginner" and having a $4000 budget to spend. I would also suggest to start small, which is the essence of what you say, afira, but if you insist that you want to spend $4000... then neuroanatomists suggestions are very good, taking the overall picture into account and not focusing on the body/lenses only. That said, I would be a little bit suspicious that he recommended only Canon hardware for dSLR, lenses, P&S and video cam... I suspect this is due to a bias based on his experience, which is not surprising, given that this is a Canon rumours forum.

 

[koolman]

Currently all I have is a Canon SX100 IS point and shoot.
In the film era, I had a Pentax SLR with 28-80 cheap lens (abandoned when went digital).

My wife takes more than 100 snapshots and several videos per month.
We want a better camera and can afford spending up to 4000$

We do not make money of photography.
Most of the snapshots are of our family.
At least half are taken indoor (low light).
About 5% are in low light plus long distance such as performance on stage.
Most of the rest is outdoor.

My wife wants a small camera and I want fast lenses.

What do you say about the following combination:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Canon 600D + 50mm f/1.4 + 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II
[*]Panasonic GF3 + Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 + Leica Summilux DG 25mm f/1.4
[/list]

This combination provides:

• Extremely small camera for standard distance.
• Fast lenses on both 50mm and 80mm (35 equivalence).
• Best zoom on 100-300 (35 equivalence).

On the other hand, investing in two different camera systems costs money.

Any comments?
Any better alternative with similar cost ?

Dear Ehud,

You basically want/need a camera for family pics, both outdoor and indoor, which account to 95% of your usage, + "5% low light + long distance" like on a stage from a distance.
You also mention a fondness for fast lenses, and a preference for small bodies.

$4,000 !! for family pictures ! wow.

I would suggest:
1) canon 600d + 15-85 zoom + flash. That will cover all your family pics indoor + outdoor.
2) To satisfy the fast lens need: canon 50mm 1.8 OR canon 35mm f/2. I am fond of the 35 however it is a "normal" lens, not a portrait lens.
3) As far as the stage from a distance in low light. The 70-200 L 2.8 mark2 - is a very heavy expensive overkill, and I don't see a parent/needing or lugging around such a heavy, expensive, professional lens. This lens was intended for pro's shooting action like a basket ball game.
As I assume your stage activity is not fast moving like sports, you probably could get away with the 70-300 IS, or the 70-200 L F/4 IS. You can also consider a fast prime if the stage distance is more or less constant such as a 85mm 1.8, or 100mm 2.8 macro.


Prices:
1) camera 700 + flash 400 + lens 750 = 1850
2) 100
=1,950 (and is probably all you need)
3) the zooms I suggested are 500 - 1200 additional - the primes all around 350.

 

[Hillsilly]

Although you are missing something on the wide end, your suggested Canon kit isn't too bad. As general advice, a wide angle zoom, a fast prime and telephoto zoom would be fine for most people. However, if you are taking a lot of photos in low light, I'd echo some of the other replies and suggest you consider a faster prime instead of (or in conjunction with) the 70-200. That being said, the 70-200 is only just over one stop slower and has the advantage of being a zoom. You have to weigh up the versatility and reach of a zoom vs marginally noisier photos.

Also, as mentioned, the 70-200 is a big, big lens. The other lenses mentioned (85 / 100 /135) are substantially smaller and lighter. This has a big impact on its usability and your desire to take it anywhere. You do feel conspicuous carrying such a big lens around. (You'll also get some odd looks taking pictures of children at a park or party even when they are your own children.....or is that just me??) But it is a great lens. Many photographers (amateurs and professionals, male and female) love this lens for outdoor portraits. I'd love to have one, myself.

There are a few comments on the complexity of dslrs, how $4,000 is a lot to spend etc etc. But if you can afford it, why not buy "L" lenses. They are better built and just feel better to use. Personally, I say just go and do it. If it turns out that you've made a bad decision, there is a very active second hand market and the lenses retain most of their value. You might lose a small bit, but it won't be the end of the world.

I went the cheap option myself, with the 50/1.8 and the 70-200/4. Along with a 10-22, I'm set for most things that come up. This won't give you quite the same low light capabilities or background blur, but would free up some funds for a flash and other accessories and is an option to consider.

On using two systems, I'd suggest starting with the 600D first. It is the more versatile of the two cameras. I'd only consider the Panasonic if it becomes clear that the Canon doesn't perform in a particular area that is important to you and you believe that the Panasonic is better. But apart from the weight and size, the 600D should be superior in every other aspect and you may not feel the need for two systems. Save your money until you know that you need it.

But if you are looking at m4/3, the new Olympus 45mm is getting good reviews and should be compatible with the Panasonic.

 

[moreorless]

What do you say about the following combination:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Canon 600D + 50mm f/1.4 + 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II
[*]Panasonic GF3 + Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 + Leica Summilux DG 25mm f/1.4
[/list]

For the Canon the main thing I'd say is that such a combination won't give you much width, the 600D is a crop sensor camera so 50mm will give you the same angle of view as 85mm would have on your old SLR. Personally I'd consider either a wider prime like the Canon 28mm 1.8 or the Sigma 30mm 1.4 on a 600D or go for a zoom like the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, if you really wanted a shallow depth of field maybe add a Canon 85mm 1.8 aswell.

What you don't say about your wife's use is how interested she is in image quality and manual controls. If she just wanted good compact quality pics in the smallest body possible and occasionally playing around with manual settings then the Canon S95 might suit her well. As small as a normal compact but with the image quality/low light performance of a bridge camera.

Alternatively if she did want the best image quality in a small package and manual controls what about the Fuji X100? Its only got a fixed 35mm lens but has crop DSLR standard image quality/low light performance in a reasonabley small stylish package.

I'm just thinking that if its you who really wants more versility on your camera then you might be better off getting a changeble lens camera and just get a fixed lens one for your wife.