Reading mode: Light Dark

Crazy Plans for First DSLR

Go to last post
S

Squilliam

Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
1
Location
AU
After using a Canon SX1 bridge camera for the past two years, one of the largest gaps I have found is the lack of focal lengths below 24mm. To explore these, I plan to purchase an EOS 1100D Body as my first DSLR and a Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens.

Is this a good or simply crazy idea?
 
Squilliam said:
After using a Canon SX1 bridge camera for the past two years, one of the largest gaps I have found is the lack of focal lengths below 24mm. To explore these, I plan to purchase an EOS 1100D Body as my first DSLR and a Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens.

Is this a good or simply crazy idea?
Click to expand...
One of the problems with compact going super wide is that it's hard to do. You have to be so crazy wide so that after the crop factor, you're still crazy wide.

I'm not sure I'd settle for that 1100D but I like your idea. You'll have to really learn how to do super wide angle shooting. Most of us just don't. We think that super wide means "getting it all in" which is might sometimes in landscape situations, but is usually not the way to go, giving us boring snapshots.

In my opinion using a very wide lens allows you to climb into your subject and show space and depth. You can have part of your subject almost beside you and part off a bit. You can have your subject wrap right around you and can show distance between one aspect of it and another. This is quite hard to do and takes real skill and/or talent which I'm still trying to achieve after fifty years in photography. The great thing is that it's really fun to continue trying.

One way is to get the camera right on the ground where you can see that depth. The traditional railroad rail shots come to mind. I've got one with a coconut in front and the palm that dropped it pretty far back. It's not great but shows I'm still trying.

I also like keystoning. Keystone effect is what you get when you change the angle of a super wide from the subject. It would be like aiming up at the top of a high building where the building's perspective leans way over, or where you tilt the camera down and away so things below bulge out more. It's similar to barrel distortion.

All this is the fun of a superwide, in my book. That lens is great at it as well. Start learning how to get huge foregrounds to be part of the subject to emphasize the distance. Try puttings parts up very close while the man subject is off some ways. Try moving into a subject rather than standing back and zooming. You'll have a lot of fun.

This is totally not a crazy plan of yours. It's just tough to really get good at it.







--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile
 
I think that it's a great idea. Many people automatically get a tele zoom as their second lens and never even consider an ultrawide even though that may be more useful to them. Your choice of lenses should depend on what you shoot.
 
As indicated by others, if that is what you need, do it; it will give you the freedom to explore it.

Personally I'm not really a wide angle man but that lens is also on my wish list (with low priority though).

Not sure if you have considered it, but add a 'normal lens' as well. It might be a good opportunity to a fastish 35mm (not familiar with Canon and its lens compatibility).

--
WimS
 
The Sigma 10-20 is a fine ultrawide. It'll set your creative powers free and make for some surprising and captivating shots.

You have to try it for yourself to learn if ultrawide is your thing. Personally I enjoy it a lot. Other people are more telephoto guys by heart. To each his own.

Regards,
--Anders.
 
asp1880 said:
The Sigma 10-20 is a fine ultrawide. It'll set your creative powers free and make for some surprising and captivating shots.

You have to try it for yourself to learn if ultrawide is your thing. Personally I enjoy it a lot. Other people are more telephoto guys by heart. To each his own.

Regards,
--Anders.
Click to expand...
I agree. All of the shots in the little gallery linked to below were taken with the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. And I would not have pictured that use before getting the lens -

http://kellycook.zenfolio.com/p1062712290

But still, get the kit 18-55 too, not just the body. That lens is so cheap (when purchased with the body) that there is no reason to pass it up.

Kelly Cook
 
Squilliam said:
After using a Canon SX1 bridge camera for the past two years, one of the largest gaps I have found is the lack of focal lengths below 24mm. To explore these, I plan to purchase an EOS 1100D Body as my first DSLR and a Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens.

Is this a good or simply crazy idea?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't rate it as either good or crazy. Having grown up in New York in the '60's, I have a relatively high standard for crazy and that doesn't approach it. I mean, you don't even mention cannibalism.

Returning to photographic themes, I would not have a 10-20 as my only lens. I have a 10-24 for my Nikon and while it's valuable for what it does, there are only a few types of subjects that are appropriate for it. I suggest you also get a normal zoom such as an 18-55 (The camera probably comes with one). This will allow you to take a wider range of pictures. The combination of a "normal" zoom and a superwide zoom really gives you creative freedom.

--
Leonard Migliore
 
Leonard Migliore said:
Squilliam said:
After using a Canon SX1 bridge camera for the past two years, one of the largest gaps I have found is the lack of focal lengths below 24mm. To explore these, I plan to purchase an EOS 1100D Body as my first DSLR and a Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens.

Is this a good or simply crazy idea?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't rate it as either good or crazy. Having grown up in New York in the '60's, I have a relatively high standard for crazy and that doesn't approach it. I mean, you don't even mention cannibalism.

Returning to photographic themes, I would not have a 10-20 as my only lens. I have a 10-24 for my Nikon and while it's valuable for what it does, there are only a few types of subjects that are appropriate for it. I suggest you also get a normal zoom such as an 18-55 (The camera probably comes with one). This will allow you to take a wider range of pictures. The combination of a "normal" zoom and a superwide zoom really gives you creative freedom.
Click to expand...
I suspect that the EOS 1100D will at least initially be used to supplement, not replace the SX1. Ignoring aspect ratio differences, the 10-20mm lens's coverage will be comparable to 16-32mm, so there will be a considerable focal length overlap, from 24 to 32mm. If the EOS1100D produces better images in that overlapping region (and I suspect that it will), another lens might be the next addition to the EOS kit. I have an SX10 which is the CCD sensor version of the SX1, and reviews show that it has a slight edge over the SX1 in image quality. It doesn't come close to producing the image quality of wide angle lenses on my Nikon DSLRs but it's a lot more convenient and often good enough.
 
Are you sure people will use SLRs next year? Do you like sound of jumping mirror + shaking cameras?

Lok at Benoz pictures on "Sony Talk" forum, he used Sony HX9V pocket camera. I deeply doubt I can make pictures better with my SLR.
SLR is a typical attribute of film.
 
AlexG47 said:
Are you sure people will use SLRs next year? Do you like sound of jumping mirror + shaking cameras?

Lok at Benoz pictures on "Sony Talk" forum, he used Sony HX9V pocket camera. I deeply doubt I can make pictures better with my SLR.
SLR is a typical attribute of film.
Click to expand...
I'm certain you're probably kidding, but yes, I'm sure people will continue to use SLRs next year. Even if your pocket camera can equal the IQ of a good SLR, which I deny, it still can't do many things a better camera can do like track action or work in very dim light. There's also the issue with accessories like lenses, flash and other items needed for many types of photography. That need will never go away.

Ben is a very good photographer and his compact is top of the line for Sony as the S100 or G1X is for Canon. They help an already good photographer take great images. Some of Ben's shots are stunning and I'd bet he is also good in the Digital Darkroom. I also carry a Canon S95 and I think I can do rather well with it, but I absolutely know it can not replace my D700 with regards to the what I do with it. There is no way my Canon S95 or Ben's Sony is going to make a good bird camera, as an example. It's the wrong tool.

Compact cameras are great tools for general photography and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX9V is a very good example of that genre. Ben, using it, will produce some stunning shots. But, that's it. General photography under good situations. The average Joe will have as much problems under challenging conditions as he will with a DSLR but will find it even harder to overcome.

Maybe you couldn't take as good of an image with your SLR as Ben does with the compact and that's normal. We all agree that the photographer is the primary part of the equation. I'll bet you could take a better image of a Bald Eagle perched 100 meters away with a DSLR price no object than he could with his compact. You might get more keepers of grandkids running around in the backyard as well. You see, the DSLR is here to stay.
--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile
 
Guidenet said:
. . .

I'm certain you're probably kidding, but yes, I'm sure people will continue to use SLRs next year. Even if your pocket camera can equal the IQ of a good SLR, which I deny, it still can't do many things a better camera can do like track action or work in very dim light. There's also the issue with accessories like lenses, flash and other items needed for many types of photography. That need will never go away.
Click to expand...
Almost all small cameras can't, but while Nikon's new J1/V1 aren't low light champs they do excel at tracking action, and I'm sure that they won't retain that crown when other manufacturers (particularly Canon) have enough time to develop mirrorless cameras with similar capability.
Guidenet said:
Nikon has attained this incredibly high-speed autofocus by combining technologies of the focal plane phase-detection autofocus enabled by the super high-speed AF CMOS image sensor; the newly developed high-speed image-processing engine EXPEED 3, which enhances processing speeds to a higher level; and 1 NIKKOR that realizes high-speed drive control.

The new cameras also employ the same algorithm of the predictive focus tracking system used in Nikon flagship digital SLR camera D3S, to secure the capacity required to follow a rapidly moving subject. These cameras assure you of capturing without fail those decisive moments during exciting play at sports events or the active movements of children in a playground.
Click to expand...
http://www.nikon.com/about/technology/life/imaging/hyspeedaf/

Guidenet said:
I also carry a Canon S95 and I think I can do rather well with it, but I absolutely know it can not replace my D700 with regards to the what I do with it. There is no way my Canon S95 or Ben's Sony is going to make a good bird camera, as an example. It's the wrong tool.
Click to expand...
I completely agree, and the V1 won't replace my D700 either, but it might make for an excellent, small birder's camera. With the FT1 adapter (which I don't have yet) it acts as a super teleconverter that doesn't reduce lens apertures, so the 300mm f/4 becomes an 810mm f/4 lens and the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR becomes a 180-540mm stabilized zoom lens. It's unlikely to replace the 200-400mm lens that other photographers use, because I doubt that the image quality that the V1's small sensor can pull out of the lens will be exceptional, but neither will it be a dog. I think that Marianne O. mentioned that the new 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor with the FT1 might make a very competent "poor man's" 200mm f/2, and at a very small fraction of the size, weight and price.

I read one reply a week or two ago (with photo) from a photographer that said that with the FT1 and his 500mm Nikkor he got better results with moon photos than he ever did with the same lens on his D700. I suspect that I'll never get a 400mm or 500mm "pro" Nikkor, but I'll be checking out the 300mm f/4 when I get the FT1.

Guidenet said:
Maybe you couldn't take as good of an image with your SLR as Ben does with the compact and that's normal. We all agree that the photographer is the primary part of the equation. I'll bet you could take a better image of a Bald Eagle perched 100 meters away with a DSLR price no object than he could with his compact. You might get more keepers of grandkids running around in the backyard as well. You see, the DSLR is here to stay.
Click to expand...
Maybe for you and me, but I have a hunch that most of those grandkids, and especially their own children won't have a DSLR in their future. BTW, the VR on those little 1 Series lenses appears to be as good or possibly even better than the VR on Nikon's pro lenses. I got many very good results shooting at 1/4 and 1/5 sec. with the 30-110mm lens at 35mm equivalent focal lengths of 200mm, and many other photographers have been reporting similar joy. I read one happy senior citizen also report very good results despite his "shaky" hands.
 
Hey, I mostly agree, but I was referring to the typical compact, not an $800 mirrorless model. He was also talking about a Sony compact.

Even so, I don't think a V1 will be taking over the role of a prograde DSLR any time soon. There are still too many things it can't do as well. Technology would have to catch up such that there was no advantage to a larger sensor, not just get better because that would apply to the bigger sensor too, but it would have to equalize the two. Secondly, there are things such as focus isolation that looks crumby when done in software. Maybe down the road considerably.

Over the past 40-50 years, I've heard the cry that SLRs would be doomed by whatever technology was coming into popularity at the time. What I've found is that DSLRs just absorb that same technology and keep working. It's a bit like sheet film technical cameras. They can do things that just can't be done by other tools. There will probably always be a need for them and they will always be made.

As much as I like the little Nikon V1, I probably won't jump. I've looked carefully at the controls and just don't care for the implementation. They've just dumbed it down too far for my particular tastes. I know it can be worked around, but I darn well want my PSAM knob darnit. ;) I also like to see what the screen does as I change exposure and a live histogram would be nice. I know it's not on my SLRs but that's a different story. I'm using them differently.

Maybe they will come out with more of an enthusiast model and when they do, I think it would make a cool birding camera. I can't wait to try it with my big glass. I think it would do a great job. The same goes for an enthusiast sports camera. I think it could really be adapted to that. I like Nikon's approach except for the lack of control. Just my silly opinion, of course. :)

--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile
 
Guidenet said:
Hey, I mostly agree, but I was referring to the typical compact, not an $800 mirrorless model. He was also talking about a Sony compact.
Click to expand...
Guidenet said:
As much as I like the little Nikon V1, I probably won't jump. I've looked carefully at the controls and just don't care for the implementation. They've just dumbed it down too far for my particular tastes. I know it can be worked around, but I darn well want my PSAM knob darnit. ;) I also like to see what the screen does as I change exposure and a live histogram would be nice. I know it's not on my SLRs but that's a different story. I'm using them differently.
Click to expand...
I agree with your points as well, but based on what Brad Hill wrote about the problem of not having live histograms (which I'd also prefer), I'll have to see if what he said works for me too. At the time I purchased the V1 I was pretty sure that I wouldn't be happy with its lack of dials and controls that I'm used to, but I assumed that eventually Nikon would offer a 1-Series camera more to my liking, and I didn't want to forego its advantages until then, which could be a year or more from now.
Guidenet said:
  • 3. And, on the really picky side...and only because dpreview.com has considered it so important that it merits a bullet point in their final list of "Pros and Cons" (as the second "Con") - dpreview.com states "No 'live' simulation of exposure compensation, nor on-screen histogram" (italics and boldface mine). Hmmm...I agree on the "no on-screen histogram" - it's not there and I initially thought it would be nice to have. But my V1 DOES simulate the effect of exposure compensation while I'm looking through the viewfinder - I rely on this feature daily and it works well - after a day or two of use I could use it effectively enough to judge exactly when I'd be losing highlights (or shadows) in high contrast scenes while looking through the viewfinder. In fact, now I'm completely fine with NOT having a live histogram (makes for a much cleaner view of the scene and I have no problem judging the effect of exposure compensation).
Click to expand...
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html

Guidenet said:
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile
Click to expand...
What's Twitter? <g>
 
Squilliam said:
After using a Canon SX1 bridge camera for the past two years, one of the largest gaps I have found is the lack of focal lengths below 24mm. To explore these, I plan to purchase an EOS 1100D Body as my first DSLR and a Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens.

Is this a good or simply crazy idea?
Click to expand...
not crazy but instead of the 1100D consider the slightly older T2i (550D)
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2010/05/camera-test-canon-eos-rebel-t2i
or

if you like lightweight non-DSLR cameras with a larger sensor look at the new Canon G1X with APS-C size sensor
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/10/CanonG1X_Preview
 
Well, I took your link to Brad's site and all I can say is wow. I'm gong to rethink my birding needs. The 400 f/2.8 and the Nuthatch was simply amazing. Thanks for sharing that link.

--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile
 
With respect to thatcomparison, how many full frame lenses go wider than 14mm anyway? If the OP has the budget, then sure, get a Nikon 14-24 and a full frame. That's your best wide angle zoom bet, but with a price to match. On a cropped sensor, the 10-20, with the exception of the 8-16 and some fisheyes, is as wide FOV as it gets.

I own and use that 10-20 and it is a good lens, not great, but good. However, it is exceptional for the price it is and it takes filters well, which may be important. It's reasonable resistant to flare. The color and contrast are slightly better than average, but better than a lot of lenses in its league. You'd be hard pressed to get better value.

I think your idea is a good one. However, you must ask if you really need to go THAT wide as it will make some types of shots look plain weird.
beshannon said:
Well since that is an APS-C sensor, your lens is going to be approximately a 15-30 so it will not be quite as wide as you thought
--
My Smugmug photos http://www.brianshannonphotography.com/
My photo blog http://brianshannonphotography.blogspot.com/
My 500px photos http://500px.com/brianshannonphotography/

Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Brian-Shannon-Photography/157237647635870
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top