682 replies to this topic

[Nick Bullseye]

Canon EOS-M with RF-M 18-55m lens costs 900 euro. Quite steep for a consensed Canon 650D. Certainly, it is compatible with EF and EF-S lens, but what for? Frankly, I do not see the advantage to buy the EOS-M, cpompared with a 650D. Canon wanted probably have a hybrid comparable to Nikon J1 and V1, but the latter cameras were not a big success.

[rxpharm]

For you guys who believe that Nikon/Canon are the be all and end all of DSLRs there is an alternative that has more features, and costs less, delivering practically the same image quality.

Here's a video from Gary Fong (the flash attachment guy).



For those who don't want a 24 MP APS-C DSLR, you can also choose from the Alpha A37 and Alpha A57, which have the excellent 16 MP sensor.

I picked up an Alpha A57 in June as I have been using the Konica Minolta 5D since 2005. Quite a huge jump in autofocus speed, accuracy, low light performance (good up to ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 acceptable for up to 8x10 prints if exposed properly). If you're looking around for a new DSLR and not tied to a particular brand yet due to lenses, flash, etc, consider the Sony Alpha line.

[kendal1972]

[quote name="bullseyemaco"]Canon EOS-M with RF-M 18-55m lens costs 900 euro. Quite steep for a consensed Canon 650D. Certainly, it is compatible with EF and EF-S lens, but what for? Frankly, I do not see the advantage to buy the EOS-M, cpompared with a 650D. Canon wanted probably have a hybrid comparable to Nikon J1 and V1, but the latter cameras were not a big success.[/quote

i seen a pic somewhere of the eos-m with i think an 800mm attached...it looked quite ridiculous lol

[kendal1972]

i won't deny the d800 was a seriously good camera(the detail is outstanding) but just as the reviews suggested it just doesn't have the performance in low light situations.

What??

I don't know which reviews you are referring to but that isn't a logical conclusion one could make after a fair analysis of the data. Both cameras are capable of shooting in the (almost) dark.

I would be delighted with the performance of either but have no plans to buy one. As for the "pixel count war", now that Nikon's reasons for giving their D800 36MP are better understood, the clamour about it has died down. I read the D800 can be operated as an APSC camera with 16MP. That's one way to cut down the size of the files though that does sort of defeat the purpose of buying a full frame camera.

Kendal, you may be interested to know that there are a number of references in dpreview.com about 5D MK II shooters quietly shifting over to Nikon for both the D800 & the even better D800E. I am not criticising your choice, I am just giving another POV. Cheers.

Actually i rented the 2 camera's, in fact i also rented the older d700 and mk2 aswell before i made my choice. so aswell as the reviews i had my own experience and for me the noise was to much in low light situations on the d800. frankly the mk2 was crap for anything other than landscapes but the d700 was nicely balanced and i probably would have gone for it had it not been for the mk 3 being around.

The only problems i've found with my new toy (apart from the never ending cost) is the bloody 32mb file size and cs3/elements 7 will not read the raw files!!! time to upgrade the software maybe.

[Hoot]

... frankly the mk2 was crap for anything other than landscape...

I've seen some pretty stunning images created with the MKII over the years, if you're saying it's crap compared to what you've got, that sets the bar for the MKIII pretty high. Hopefully you'll share some photos from one of our favorite subjects once you get back to LOS. Or if you have any pics sitting around in a shoe box you could share some now too...we're in dire need of some eye candy around these parts

... cs3/elements 7 will not read the raw files!!!

I got caught by that as well. Had to buy the upgrade as they weren't adding new raw support to older versions of lightroom.

[BigTel]

Thanks RXpharm for that you tube link on Gary Fong, I haven't considered the Sony before but looking at that video they sure are worth looking into as a viable alternative to the Canon or Nikon range.

[RobiSLO]

.....

For those who don't want a 24 MP APS-C DSLR, you can also choose from the Alpha A37 and Alpha A57, which have the excellent 16 MP sensor.

I picked up an Alpha A57 in June as I have been using the Konica Minolta 5D since 2005. Quite a huge jump in autofocus speed, accuracy, low light performance (good up to ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 acceptable for up to 8x10 prints if exposed properly). If you're looking around for a new DSLR and not tied to a particular brand yet due to lenses, flash, etc, consider the Sony Alpha line.

I have Sony A580 with almost the same 16,2 MP exmor sensor so I can only second your post. What lenses do you use?

[rxpharm]

BigTel - glad you have expanded your options - for those interested in value and performance the Sony Alpha 37, 57 are extremely tough to beat, and for the more high end the Alpha 65 and 77 do quite well!

RobiSLO - I have the Minolta 50 mm F1.4, Minolta 500 mm autofocus F8.0 reflex, Minolta 70-210 F4.0 (Beercan), Sony 18-250 mm F3.5 - 6.3, and the Tamron 90 mm F2.8 Macro, and the 75-300 mm F4.5-5.6 - I've found that these all focus much faster and more acccuracy with the A57 than with the old 5D, along with a Sony FM-56 Flash, with a Demb Flip-it flash diffuser.

Of course I can't haul all that around on holidays, so I usually pack the 50 mm F1.4, and the Sony 18-250 zoom, with the flash.

[petesie]

And the results speak for themselves sir!

I'm having a rethink along the lines of good primes; currently I have the DX 18-105mm, DX 35mm 1.8G, AF 50mm 1.4D, and Tamron 10-24mm-18-270mm.

I like my Tamrons but an upgrade with the Nikons is in order...

[RobiSLO]

Nice kit rxpharm... I also experimented a lot but now I only use 3 lens kit, 50mm f1,7 Minolta, 18-200 Sony and 75-300 Minolta. I plan to buy Tamron 17-50mm f2,8 and maybe if I sell my old Sony 18-200 Sony 18-250 or new Sony 18-135... we'll see.

[kendal1972]

And the results speak for themselves sir!

I'm having a rethink along the lines of good primes; currently I have the DX 18-105mm, DX 35mm 1.8G, AF 50mm 1.4D, and Tamron 10-24mm-18-270mm.

I like my Tamrons but an upgrade with the Nikons is in order...

Tamron have some very good lenses out and at reasonable prices and so do Sigma, i bought myself the 120-400mm sigma yesterday so dont necessarily rule out Tamron and Sigma as they do have some very good primes apparently. everyone has a lot more lenses than my 2! but then i've just jumped ship from pentax to canon...
i noticed the full frame nikon and canon lenses are incredibly expensive although the quality is said to be very good my only experience so far is with the 24-105mm F4L that i bought and it is a good lense.
i read the 24-70mm f2.8 is pretty much the standard zoom now as it's alledgedly good for portrait stuff amongst other things, at least that will be my next purchase along with maybe a 50mm f1.8 or 1.4 if i can afford it.
then i need to buy a half decent flashgun then a 35mm and a macro and a 70-200 f2.8, a bigger bag, a better tripod, a light meter, millions of filters bla bla bla.
It's a fine balance between getting the stuff you want and affecting your next trip to LOS

[RobiSLO]

I know 99,9% of Minolta/Sony users know this site but still:

http://www.dyxum.com/

Here you can find everything about almost every Mount A lens and forum is the best place to answer questions about "your only camera". Before every buy I first go there and check lens score and reviews... a must see site for me.