Canon camera body names

Question

Right now I'm rocking a Canon Rebel XS and I get that there's some kind of progression from XS to T1, T2, T3 etc and I get the "i" variants (XSi, T3i, etc), but where I get confused is with the EOS 1D, EOS 5D, EOS 7D, EOS 60D, etc.

From what I can tell they seem to each lend themselves towards a particular niche of photography (one claims improved IR for stargazers), but I'm not sure what the others might be good for.

Can someone explain the differences in this models and maybe what certain features might be good for?

Thanks

Asked by tenmiles

Answer

Canon has an odd numbering system and they adjusted it over the years too, so it not entirely consistent (no manufacturer is but Canon is one of the bigger offenders).

All Canon DSLRs actually have a model number which is used in Europe. In America these are replaced by letters such as XS, XSi T3i, etc. Asia uses a different naming system (Kiss). For example, the Canon Rebel XS is the 1000D. If you use the model numbers, things are a little easier to sort out:

• Cameras with more digits are lower-level, so 1000D is lower than 600D which is lower than 60D, which is lower than 5D.
• Within non-single-digit models, higher numbers are newer and usually better. So a 1100D is better than a 1000D and a 50D is better than a 40D.
• Within single-digital models, lower digits are higher-end, regardless of introduction data. So a 1D is higher end than a 5D which is higher end than a 7D.

The a suffix which was only used twice means for Astrophotography.

Broadly, 4-digit models are the absolute basic models with very limited feature sets and interface. 3-digit models are only a tad better with a few more functions and a slightly larger LCD and maybe a few more megapixels.

Two-digit models are mid-range. They share the same sensor with the 3-digit models but have better bodies with more controls and - crucially - dual control-dials. This makes them more efficient to use. The also shoot noticeably faster.

The 7D is the top-end crop-sensor model, sharing the same sensor with the 60D, but offering a weather-sealed body and a 100% coverage viewfinder, which makes it much more suitable for serious use. It also shoots at an even faster rate.

The 5D series is a full-frame model which looks at lot like a 7D but offers improved image quality. The latest is the 5D Mark III which I just reviewed last week. It has an ultra-fast autofocus system which is also shared with the top-end 1D series.

The 1D X is the top of the line in terms of image quality and speed. It has less resolution than the 7D or 5D but higher sensitivity to light and much faster speed. It is also built like a tank with an integrated vertical grip and huge battery.

Answered by Itai

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it necessary to use a full-frame camera to get the best out of my Canon EF 180mm f3.5 L?

Question

I do mostly handheld macro photography and I currently own a Canon 40D. I want to buy a new camera and I don't know what is the best choice.

My goal is to get the best of my lens. So I'm not sure if full-frame 21mpx 5D MkII or III will give better results than the 18mpx 1.6-crop canon 7D. (Also taking in to account the ISO quality for faster shutter speed pixel density and the resolution of the 180mm.)

Can the 5D get better details then the 1.6 crop?

Asked by Daniel

Answer

Yes

The 5D will get better details than the 1.6 crop. A macro lens will resolve a certain number of line pairs per millimetre. Image sharpness is measured in line pairs per picture height, by using the same lens but with physically bigger sensor you will get more line pairs per picture height, hence more detail in your image.

Another way to look at it is that using a smaller sensor is like making an enlargement, or viewing a portion of an image close up - it's never going to look as sharp under those circumstances.

Now on some lenses corner performance can drop off to the extent that you get better average sharpness (but lower peak sharpness) by using a crop sensor and simply avoiding the extreme corners. Here is an example of such a lens, the Canon 35mm f/2.0:

APS-C corners occur at 13.5mm, where sharpness at f/8.0 (fine blue line) remains above 0.8. On full frame sharpness takes a nose dive starting at 18mm, which corresponds to middle of the left or right edge of the frame. Now compare that to the Canon 180mm f/3.5L Macro:

Sharpness is extremely high right across the frame, there is no notable drop off, meaning your full frame image will be sharper everywhere, even in the extreme corners.

However if both cameras have a similar same number of megapixels then a crop sensor can be very useful for macro photography as it allows you to photograph smaller objects. A true macro lens on full frame will let you fill the frame with an object only 36mm across, whearas with a crop camera you can fill the [1.6x smaller] frame with an object only 22.5mm across. This can be very useful for um, photographing really small things!

Answered by Matt Grum

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the techincal advantages and disadvantages of mirrorless?

Question

The main doubt one can have about mirrorless is, I think that they do not provide ttl viewfinder. Is this a big disadvantage? In what way is it worst (or best) than classical reflex system?

What are the others advantages and disadvantages of a mirrorless compared to a reflex?

Have mirrorless a chance to replace reflex (at least for non pros) in the future?

Asked by Paolo

Answer

Advantages/Disadvantages of electronic viewfinders have been discussed in another question for completeness:

• Optical TTL viewfinders are pretty much as sharp as the lens (with small losses for the focus screen and prism). Electronic viewfinders have fixed resolution, which is currently lower than OVFs.
• OVFs update in realtime, EVFs have a fixed latency and refresh rate (time taken to process the image, number of updates per second).
• Coverage of OVFs is often less than 100%, eyepoint & dioptre adjustments are limited as is the apparent size and brightness of the viewfinder.
• Electronic viewfinders have the ability to preview colour balance and depth of field (without darkening the image), zoom the image, apply gain for night shots as well as the potential of overlaying a limitless amount of metadata (gridlines, live histogram etc.).

The principal advantages of an SLR (or SLT) system are

• Ability to have TTL viewfinder! (see above)
• Ability to direct light to phase detect AF sensor.

The disadvantages are:

• Size / weight
• Shorter backfocus distance, allows more compact wideangles, as well as mounting of a wide range of legacy lenses.
• Increased reliability (fewer moving parts).
• Noise / Mirror slap (causes motion blur)
• Shooting speed (no need to move the mirror).

Once EVFs match the resolution and refresh rate reaches the level where it is not noticeable is reduced the advantage of SLR systems slips away rapidly. Currently phase detect AF is superior to contrast detect for locking onto and tacking moving targets, but CD AF is getting better and manufacturers are working on including PD sensors in the main pixel array.

Answered by Matt Grum

Check more discussion of this question.

What is an “image plane indicator”?

Question

There is a symbol, a circle with a horizontal line passing through it, on the right side of the top-plate LCD of my Pentax K-5:

This symbol also appears on my Pentax K-r on the left side of the viewfinder assembly, only that it is engraved rather than painted on. The K-5 manual calls this the image plane indicator. What does this symbol mean, and what is it used for?

Asked by DragonLord

Answer

That marks the location of the sensor (or the film plane on a film camera). You won't often have any commerce with it, but it is the "start point" when talking about focus distance. If a lens says on its spec sheet that its closest focus point is, say, 45cm, it means 45cm from that plane. (Because of the viewfinder and prism housing, it's not practical to mark on the camera body where the sensor is actually located).

It's used mostly for macro photography, where the difference between "rough distance" (the distance from the camera to the subject) and actual distance makes a difference when calculating exposure or magnification.

Answered by Stan Rogers

Check more discussion of this question.

What does the theta symbol near the flash represent?

Question

On my camera, between the mode dial and the flash, there is a white theta symbol. I've also seen it on review sites in pictures of other cameras, often in different locations but always near the pop-up flash. Why is it there, is it useful, and if so, how?

Asked by drewbenn

Answer

This indicates the plane that the image sensor lies in, so you can use to calculate the exact distance between your subject and your "film".

Answered by davr

Check more discussion of this question.

What types of digital cameras are out there?

Question

Everything I come across while researching digital cameras for the most part falls into two categories: Point-and-Shoot and SLRs.

Are there any other types of cameras, be it professional or consumer, and if so, are there any advantages or disadvantages over point-and-shoot or SLR?

Note: I am not referring to "special" cameras that are specifically developed for a certain use; I am looking for a general overview. I'm also only interested in digital, not in film cameras.

Asked by Lynda

Answer

Other camera types that I can think of, in terms of digital, would be:

• Cell Phone - Destined, I think, to ultimately replace, or at least supplant, the point and shoot. They currently represent what is the most likely camera for a person to be carrying and that is what gives them advantage: the camera you have with you is infinitely better than the one that you do not. :) At any rate, they're getting better.

• Bridge - The basic body structure of an SLR with a built-in lens and P&S features. The name, as implied, is about bridging the point and shoot to the SLR. In my opinion, and it is strictly opinion, you end up with the disadvantages of both (bulk of an SLR, image quality of a P&S) without their advantages (lens interchange of an SLR, portability of a P&S).

• Medium Format - Big, powerful, and a price to match. The cheapest of these start at $10,000 and it skyrockets from there. The advantage? Image quality. The medium format camera represents the best of image quality, but they're bulky, have slow frame rates, and more restricted ISO ranges. So, there are trade-offs there, even for the price.

• Mirrorless - It can be micro four-thirds or the more radical Nikon V1 and Pentax Q, but these are interchangeable lens cameras without a mirror. They're often equipped with electronic viewfinders. Their advantage over P&S is usually in lens options and image quality, their advantage over the SLR is in size.

• Rangefinder - Not an SLR as it doesn't have the moving mirror. Leica is the king of this market. Big advantage is smaller body over an SLR, but they don't lend themselves well to zoom lenses because of the rangefinder.

However, even in the two you really know about, the variation is enormous. Not all P&S cameras are made equal and for the SLR world you have:

• Entry Level - Almost a point and shoot, but with interchangeable lenses. The Canon 600D/T3i or the Nikon 3100 are great examples of this.

• Prosumer - Pro level features, consumer styling. The Canon 60D or the Nikon 5100 are examples.

• High-end Prosumer - More pro features, such as weather sealing, faster frame rates, etc. The Canon 7D or Pentax K-5 are good examples.

• Professional - Usually full-frame sensors the size of 35mm film. These are top of the line cameras such as the Canon 1DX or the Nikon D700.

Note that some of these cameras blend or bleed between tiers, but the feature sets on the cameras do tend to lend themselves to one of those 4 tiers.

Anyways, that's my synopsis. I'm sure others could expound upon this much more.

Answered by John Cavan

Check more discussion of this question.

Nikon vs Canon vs [closed]

Question

Possible Duplicate:
What are the most notably differences between Canon and Nikon lenses?
Is there any significant difference between Nikon and Canon?

My original thought behind this question could strike up the old debate, which is better, Nikon or Canon. However, my question is a bit different. Are there unique technologies, functions, tools, etc specific to a brand of camera (whatever that brand may be) that make something about the camera unique and thus in some eyes possibly better. Please note I ask in general and the technology (etc.) would need to be on majority of cameras or if it is a new function then coming to the majority of cameras. (IE: I am not looking for Nikon Model XX which is 10,000 dollars has this function but no others do.) If there are something unique to lenses made by the specific camera maker (again applies to majority of lenses not just one) I would accept that answer also.

Asked by Lynda

Answer

The obvious ones that come to mind:

• All Canon lenses have built-in motors, so can be used on any body. Nikon lenses are mixed, so if you have a motor-less body, you need an AF-S lens if you want autofocus.

• Pentax has image stabilisation built into the camera body, so that it's available for any lens used. I believe you also get weather-sealing at the consumer/"prosumer" level, where Canon and Nikon you only get that (fully) with the professional bodies.

• Canon provides free tethered shooting software.

• Mirrorless technology, i.e. Sony, which will no doubt change rapidly and may become standard across all brands

• flash technology - Nikon had an advantage with its (IR) CLS system, but Canon has just announced radio controlled 600EX

Answered by MikeW

Check more discussion of this question.

Can I save money on lenses by buying a Nikon camera with an in-body autofocus motor?

Question

I have dilemma what camera is better Nikon D5100 or D90. The first one is newer but the second one has lens servo ("screwdriver") motor. My question is: can I save some money overall with the more expensive camera, by buying lenses without lens-based AF motors?

Asked by garik

Answer

If money is the only consideration and if you plan to buy many lenses, I'm sure the answer is yes. The newer AF-S lenses are more expensive than the AF-D predecessors, or the AF lenses before those.

If price is the only consideration, you might forego AF altogether and get some old MF Nikkors. They're often cheaper still.

I have trouble endorsing the direction this thought process leads, though. AF-S lenses often offer more than just internal motors: better optics are pretty standard. I while back I pulled out an old 35-80mm f4-5.6 AF-D "kit" lens and shot with it a little on my D300 and was amazed at how poor the optical quality of it was as compared to the 18-55mm AF-S "kit" lens. It wasn't bad, but the 18-55 was clearly better. I'm sure that there are many great AF-D lenses, but I suggest that you'll really need to do your research to be sure you're getting something worthwhile.

Of course, the AF-S lenses offer two other great benefits, too: generally faster AF, and much quieter AF.

Answered by Dan Wolfgang

Check more discussion of this question.

One expensive (L) lens or a variety of cheaper lenses, or a better body?

Question

I'm a photography enthusiast, my current equipment are the following:

• Canon EOS 1000D
• EF-S 18-55mm (the kit lens)
• Sigma 55-200mm
• Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 (the one i enjoy the most)

Now so you can understand my budget, it is in the price range of an EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens.

I have grown to believe that any body with a good lens is the best way to get high quality photos (in the right hands of course), and so i have limited my choices to these groups (Although I'm more interested in getting more lenses because i find my camera body is enough for me, but i listed buying a new camera so i hear different suggestions):

• Just getting the 24-105 L lens on my 1000D
• 600D body only with couple of lenses (probably some prime and 15-85)
• No new camera and no L lens, just more lenses for my 1000D

Keep in mind, that most of my photography is around "Nature, Close ups, a bit Street, few Portraits".

So what do you suggest i get?

Asked by silenT_Thunder

Answer

Your choice depends entirely on what you want to shoot and how you want to shoot it. I've seen recommendations that point to a particular lens because it's "designed for the format". Who cares what format it's designed for? Is it designed for your pictures?

You mentioned that the 50mm/1.8 that you own is the lens you enjoy most. Fair enough—I feel pretty much the same about mine (on different cameras, but they're still APS-C). The question to ask, then, is why you enjoy that particular lens so much. Is it because it's fast and lets you blur out the background, or is it because it gives you the perspective and framing you prefer? Or maybe both?

If it's because the lens is just about the right focal length most of the time, then you probably want a versatile lens centered more-or-less around your preferred focal length. Something that gives you a few more options for framing on either side. The 24-105 gives you a range from about twice as wide to twice as long, centered on 50mm, and it's a great lens, particularly for people shooting on an APS-C. Well, except for that whole f/4 maximum aperture thing—if bokeh is important to your images, you won't get a whole lot at the bottom end of the focal length range. (If it were an f/2.8 with the same excellent qualities otherwise, it wouldn't be great, it would be nearly perfect for someone like me.) A little less reachy, but a stop faster, is the non-IS version of the 24-70mm/2.8 (the IS version is probably outside of your budget). You get more bokeh at the lower end of the range, but you get that by restricting the long end of the focal length range. You still get almost half again as much reach as the 50, but that's not quite the same as doubling it, is it?

I, personally, have almost no use for a lens wider than 24mm. Heck, I could go further and say that I have almost no use for a lens as wide as 24mm on an APS-C (let alone on a full-frame camera). I have a perfectly adequate, if cheap, kit lens for the three or four shots a year I might make with a wide-angle lens. I just don't see the world that way, and I wouldn't spend money on a 16- or 17-55mm lens (or anything wider) no matter how well-built or fast it was even if I had unlimited resources. It doesn't matter that it's a "perfect fit for the camera" if it's a poor fit for my photography, does it?

As for the better body, well, the 600D is faster-handling overall. It has better resolution and better low-light performance. But are any of those issues getting in the way at the moment? Are they something you can defer?

Before buying any gear—bodies, lenses, anything at all—you have to ask yourself what you expect to get out of it. What do you want to do that you can't do with what you already have? Or if you can do it already, but with a great deal of awkwardness, what piece of gear will best solve that problem?

Answered by Stan Rogers

Check more discussion of this question.

What is Quiet mode on a DSLR?

Question

I've heard that some newer DSLRs have a "Quiet" mode that reduces the noise the camera makes when you take a picture (as mentioned in answers to some questions) How does it work? Are there any potential consequences from using this mode, like a reduced shutter life?

Answer

Quiet mode slows down the motion of the mirror when it goes up and delays it going back down until the shutter-release is released.

Normally the mirror going up and down is the loudest noise the camera makes. So slowing it down causes a longer shutter-lag but makes less noise. Also, the mirror normally comes back down immediately after a shot is taken so that you can follow action and compose the next shot. In Quiet mode, the mirror stays up and your viewfinder remains black until you release the shutter at a time when noise is less disruptive.

Shutter life is not affected at all since nothing changes for the shutter. The mirror actuation mechanism should last a little longer but no data to that effect is provided by manufacturers.

Check more discussion of this question.

How important is lack of color matrix metering and 100% viewfinder in Nikon F100 compared to Nikon F5?

Question

I'm planning to buy a film camera. I'm undecided between Nikon F100 and Nikon F5. The major differences that I could figure out from Thom Hogan's review are:

Pro F100:

• F100 is lighter than the monster F5

Pro F5:

• F5 has color matrix metering, compared to F100's matrix metering, which according to him is immaculate.
• F5 has a 100% viewfinder compared to F100's 96%.

Being a DSLR shooter, I'm not able to figure out how important a good color matrix meter would be. On my DSLR I'm mostly on spot meter, but then I've the luxury of reviewing the image on live view and making any necessary adjustments. Also, my DSLR has a 92% viewfinder, but again I've the luxury to crop digital images.

How important are these factors in a film camera?

Answer

A 100% viewfinder is really a pro feature on film cameras -- it can actually cause problems if you are shooting for mounted slides or having your film processed at a consumer lab, since part of the image is going to be lost under the slide mount or to slight cropping in automated printers. If you compose to the edges of a 100% finder, you are going to lose something somewhere; the "consumer" viewfinder will at least make sure that you're getting it all in. Cropping still happens; it's just not under your control. If you're shooting for film scans (common for everybody these days, but once upon a time something that only pros shooting for print would do), or printing to the frame edge (which is going to have a bit of a grungy roughness) then the 100% finder makes a lot more sense and can be worth the extra cost.

Colour matrix metering means that the camera can recognize things like skin tones and make allowances for them. If the metering is grey-scale only, then the meter is only looking for grey-scale values; the matrix computer won't be able to say "ooh, this looks like a tight head shot, and that big pinkish blob in the middle is probably meant to be a stop or so above middle grey". If you're letting the camera do most of the work, then the ability of the camera to distinguish colours make a lot of difference. If you're spot metering and placing tones (doing the roll-film version of the Zone System), then it won't make any difference -- the success of the metering job depends on your ability to expose for the tones. (If you're shooting anything that's colour-critical, incident light metering, either with a light meter or with a grey card and your camera's meter, is often the better choice anyway. You can take advantage of the film's latitude and printing/processing to bring the highlights and shadows back into line, but getting the critical stuff bang-on works best in camera, and you don't want to be guessing at subject reflectance.)

So it all comes down to what you're shooting and what happens after the shot. If you're shooting in a journalistic style and need the camera to be a full partner in the exposure so that you can get that never-to-be-repeated shot, then colour matrix metering can help (a slight caveat, though: it doesn't work nearly as well in a world of darker-skinned people as it does with East Asian and European complexions and scene recognition is never perfect -- you need to know enough to perform a quick sanity check on what the camera is telling you). And if you're processing the finished image yourself or scanning it for print, then the ability to compose to the edge in a 100% viewfinder will make a small difference in the sharpness and grain of the final image -- but if you're not, then you may lose elements of the image that were important to the composition.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it a myth or a fact that mostly it is the lenses which make your photographs not the camera bodies?

Question

I read somewhere on this site itself that you should spend more on your lenses and less on your camera bodies.

Is it a myth or a fact that mostly it is the lenses which make your photographs not the camera bodies? If it is true, then on what basis?

Answer

It's a bit of both.

Everything that the camera has to work with comes to it through the lens. If the lens is horribly soft (that is, it gives low-contrast and not very sharp images) when you do everything right, then it doesn't make a lot of difference what camera it's attached to, you're not going to be able to get razor-sharp images with a lot of "pop". The same goes for any of the optical characteristics of a lens -- the camera can't give you a wider maximum aperture, lower distortion, etc.†

So there is a minimum level of optical quality below which you really don't want to fall when selecting lenses, and there really is no substitute for having the right class of lens for the job (whether that means having a wide maximum aperture or the right focal length).

And there are handling issues to consider as well -- many of the "kit" lenses and crop-sensor superzooms are optically very good (some are actually excellent), but they're almost impossible to focus manually because they have only a very narrow ring of knurled plastic way out on the far end of a wobbly set of focus tubes to work with. If you don't focus manually, you'd never notice, but a Zen master on Valium could easily find himself smashing what is otherwise an acceptable lens to smithereens (and kicking kittens) if manual focus was important to him. And some lenses that get the optics very right but saved money on the construction exhibit zoom or focus creep -- the glass in the lens is heavier than the mechanical bits can handle, so when you point the lens up or down, gravity does its thing and changes your settings.

All of that said, though, a lens can't fix all of the problems with a camera either. If you need to shoot, say, people in very low ambient light, it's a lot easier (though only slightly less expensive) to find a camera that will let you work at ISO 25,600 than it is to find a lens with an f/0.35 maximum aperture (and if you did find the lens, you'd have to decide which part of which eyelash on which person you wanted in focus, since everything else will be thoroughly blurred). And on the camera I use hand-held and in the field most of the time,‡ a 6MP Nikon D70, there isn't enough resolution on the sensor for me to see the difference between an excellent lens and one that's merely very good -- I could spend a fortune on the very best lenses, but until I change cameras I can't see the difference in my photographs. So yes, the camera body makes a much bigger difference in the digital era than it did in the film era. But it still can't make up for a horrible lens.

And let's be realistic, too -- the lens you can afford and actually use to take pictures will always be better than the brilliant but expensive pinnacle of the lensmaker's art that never gets closer to you than your Amazon wish list. When it comes right down to it, it's much better to have a $300 dollar Samyang on your camera, with all of its flaws and foibles, than an $1800 Nikkor locked away safely in your local photo boutique. The picture you can't take never comes out well.

As Nir said, the photographer, not the tools, is the biggest limiting factor.

---

^{† Both cameras and some outboard processing software can remove things like geometric distortion (barrel and pincushion), vignetting and lateral chromatic abberation after the fact by calculating what the image would have looked like without the problems, but that always involves losing some of the original data.}

^{‡ I have Parkinson's disease, and I can't afford to buy a new top-of-the-range camera every time I drop one or involuntarily swing it into a wall. Meds can keep the tremors under control (and one learns to time things), but they don't do much for the clumsiness. At under $200 per, I don't worry about the D70s so much, and that's liberating. (I can't wait for the "ew, that's so-o-o old" used D7000s to hit the market at that price, though.) There's the whole CCD sync speed thing, too -- everything is X-sync, and all I have to consider is the flash duration being longer than my selected shutter speed. And since most of what I shoot is for small prints and the web, 6MP isn't much of a limitation. Now, if I could just get it to work in available darkness...}

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it technically possible to build a camera body to correct for lens defects?

Question

Most lenses tend to be expensive because the lens needs to be very complicated in order to correct for various optical effects (aberration, etc). Is it possible to build a sensor and processor combination which would fix defects produced by cheap lenses? I'm assuming the processor knows exactly the parameters of the len's defects.

Answer

Not only is it possible, but it's becoming commonplace. The micro-four-thirds system makes extensive use of it, and some compact cameras now do too. (I imagine that if they don't yet, most super-zooms will within a few years.) Digital Photography Review has a good article on this at http://www.dpreview.com/articles/distortion/ , and it's worth reading even if you don't like that site's reviews in general.

Correcting distortion and lateral chromatic aberration is an option in my Pentax K-7, but although it doesn't impact shot-to-shot time (unless you fill the buffer), it takes a few extra seconds per image.

Check more discussion of this question.

After 2 years of amateur photo, buy a new body or a great lens?

Question

Two years ago I bought my first DSLR. Since then I have bought and inherited some lenses. What should I buy next, a better body or more lenses? I enjoy photography but I do it fewer than I'd like (not enough time). I am not planning on selling photos nor services, just doin' it for fun.

This is all my equipment:

• Nikon D60
• Kit lens 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR
• Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM
• Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AI
• Nikkor 200mm f/4 AI
• Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI
• Nikon TC-200 Teleconverter
• Filters: Circular Polarizer and ND-400
• Very crappy tripod, before any body or lens I will buy a better tripod.

As you may have noticed I've inherited some pretty old lenses from my father (also a great old film camera, but I don't use it). I use them on full manual mode as this other answer implies on a similar case.

So my question is, should I invest in a new body or still add some more lenses? Which body? Does it make sense for me to go for a full-frame body (I guess that no)? Which lenses would you recommend to add to my equipment? and the more important question: Should I buy first a new body or a new lens?

Answer

Choose (1) or (2):

(1) If you want this board to tell you that you should buy a new body or lens:

Yes, you should buy a new body and lenses. I think you could greatly improve every aspect of your photography by purchasing a D300 or D700, and a select group of Nikkor f2.8 VR lenses. They will make a world of difference.

(2) If you want to hear the truth:

Only you can answer this question. You need to look over the last two years of photography and see where your gear has limited you. What do you want to do that you have not been able to do? What within your images do you wish you had more or less of? What challenges did you have on location, in controlling your camera, light, composition? Only by doing this can you really understand what it is that you need to replace if anything.

So for example: you mention that you have a crappy tripod. In what way is it crappy? Is this because it is brand x and everyone knows brand x is cheap? Or is there some issue in setup or teardown, or perhaps it isn't stable enough with a particular lens, or maybe it falls over in lightest breeze. If you had, say a top of the line Gitzo + RRS ball head, how would that change your photography?

Perhaps you wish to go shoot birds, and you don't have enough length at 200mm, or perhaps the converter makes things too soft. This might mean its time to look at longer lenses.

Perhaps you have lots of portraits and they are not as tack sharp, or your 50mm is too short...then perhaps a 85mm would be good. Or maybe you find that you are not getting fast enough frames per second and missing some good action shots on the soccer field, or maybe the keeper rate in fast focusing situations like sports is really poor. Maybe you should consider a new body...

You get the idea. Only by understanding your needs and challenges can you really understand whether you need a body or lens or maybe nothing at all. So, look over your images, evaluate the focal lengths, issues and concerns. Then search this site for specific questions regarding your issues, or ask new questions if they have not been asked before.

Oh and yeah, buying new gear is fun, I get that. But it tends to be a bit pricey, and heck, studying and researching this stuff is fun too.

Check more discussion of this question.

What types of Cameras are out there?

Question

Everything I come across while researching cameras for the most part falls into two categories. Point-and-Shoot and SLRs (not going into the film vs digital here I am referring to only digital)

Are there really any other types of cameras be it Professional or Consumer and if so are there any advantages or disadvantages over Point-And-Shoot and SLR?

(Please Note: I am not referring to "special" cameras that are specifically developed for a certain use I am looking for a general overview.)

Answer

Other camera types that I can think of, in terms of digital, would be:

• Cell Phone - Destined, I think, to ultimately replace, or at least supplant, the point and shoot. They currently represent what is the most likely camera for a person to be carrying and that is what gives them advantage: the camera you have with you is infinitely better than the one that you do not. :) At any rate, they're getting better.

• Bridge - The basic body structure of an SLR with a built-in lens and P&S features. The name, as implied, is about bridging the point and shoot to the SLR. In my opinion, and it is strictly opinion, you end up with the disadvantages of both (bulk of an SLR, image quality of a P&S) without their advantages (lens interchange of an SLR, portability of a P&S).

• Medium Format - Big, powerful, and a price to match. The cheapest of these start at $10,000 and it skyrockets from there. The advantage? Image quality. The medium format camera represents the best of image quality, but they're bulky, have slow frame rates, and more restricted ISO ranges. So, there are trade-offs there, even for the price.

• Mirrorless - It can be micro four-thirds or the more radical Nikon V1 and Pentax Q, but these are interchangeable lens cameras without a mirror. They're often equipped with electronic viewfinders. Their advantage over P&S is usually in lens options and image quality, their advantage over the SLR is in size.

• Rangefinder - Not an SLR as it doesn't have the moving mirror. Leica is the king of this market. Big advantage is smaller body over an SLR, but they don't lend themselves well to zoom lenses because of the rangefinder.

However, even in the two you really know about, the variation is enormous. Not all P&S cameras are made equal and for the SLR world you have:

• Entry Level - Almost a point and shoot, but with interchangeable lenses. The Canon 600D/T3i or the Nikon 3100 are great examples of this.

• Prosumer - Pro level features, consumer styling. The Canon 60D or the Nikon 5100 are examples.

• High-end Prosumer - More pro features, such as weather sealing, faster frame rates, etc. The Canon 7D or Pentax K-5 are good examples.

• Professional - Usually full-frame sensors the size of 35mm film. These are top of the line cameras such as the Canon 1DX or the Nikon D700.

Note that some of these cameras blend or bleed between tiers, but the feature sets on the cameras do tend to lend themselves to one of those 4 tiers.

Anyways, that's my synopsis. I'm sure others could expound upon this much more.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the international translations for Canon DSLR body names?

Question

Canon uses different codenames for the same camera body depending whether it is sold in North America or Europe. In Europe we have the 50D, 550D and so on, while the US has XTi (or something like that).

Most of the questions on this site just refer to the names they're familiar with, so it would be useful to have a post to refer to which can translate the names. I'm making this CW in the hope that this will be updated as new models come out.

Answer

I put together a translation table in this answer:

EOS 1100D = EOS Rebel T3  = EOS Kiss X50
EOS 1000D = EOS Rebel XS  = EOS Kiss F
EOS 600D  = EOS Rebel T3i = EOS Kiss X5
EOS 550D  = EOS Rebel T2i = EOS Kiss X4
EOS 500D  = EOS Rebel T1i = EOS Kiss X3
EOS 450D  = EOS Rebel XSi = EOS Kiss X2
EOS 400D  = EOS Rebel XTi = EOS Kiss X
EOS 350D  = EOS Rebel XT  = EOS Kiss N
EOS 300D  = EOS Rebel     = EOS Kiss

Check more discussion of this question.

What Canon film SLR with EF/EF-S lens support should I get?

Question

I've been thinking about trying my hand at film photography recently, mostly to try and improve my skills so I'm using all the knowledge but on a more instinctive basis rather than shoot review, but I'm a bit lost trying to work out which body will suit my needs best as it seems there's a fairly wide spectrum of models.

Question is if you were picking one, which would you go for? Or should I forget about trying to use my existing lenses and get something else (even, dare I say it, outside the comforting would of Canon)?

Answer

It depends on the lenses you have. If all you have are EF-S lenses then they won't (as far as i know) fit on a film EOS camera as the fitting is EF only.

If you had Tamron or Sigma lenses however for your Canon digital that have a red dot on them instead of a white dot (red dot signifies EF mount white is EF-S), then they will fit on your camera and work ok. If they are zoom lenses they will however have vignetting (dark edges with no or bad quality picture) as it is not filling the full frame of the film, but you can zoom in to a longer focal length to remove this vignetting though, as I can use my Sigma 8-16 from 14mm-ish onwards if I want something really wide. This is a problem you won't be able to overcome with a prime lens however so you will be missing picture at the edges.

If you have EF lenses then all will work ok with any EOS film camera.

I personally have a Canon EOS 300V, and can recommend this as a nice simple film camera to use. It has all the manual modes and various presets like landscape and portrait etc. Whilst the extra options are more basic than a higher end film camera, you can get something like this model for around $30-40 on ebay. This is one of the newer low end models too so has slight improvements here and there.

Check more discussion of this question.

How many actuations are “too many actuations”?

Question

When looking at used camera bodies, a question that comes up a lot, is "how many shutter actuations, or clicks, does it have?"

What I am wondering is, how many is too many. In other words, is there a reference for knowing when a sensor is more likely to go? How should I judge a camera body with 20000 vs 5000? Is that a significant difference, or is that not even relevant.

Obviously this might something that is dependent on model, so if there is some information based on model that would be even more interesting.

One of the guys at Canon Tech Support said that this is completely irrelevant for the Rebel series cameras, but he is obviously slightly biased. :)

Thanks!

Answer

A great resource for looking at camera bodies and shutter life is the Camera Shutter Life Expectancy Database. For those that have DSLR's, spread the word and submit your #'s!

Different camera bodies have different MTBF ratings. Some more important factors are how the person cared for their camera and the typical environment. Regular dust cleaning, for example, helps a lot.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it possible to convert a film SLR to digital?

Question

This may well be a question to which the answer is "can't be done," but I was wondering whether it was possible to convert a film SLR to a DSLR by putting a sensor in place of the film. I have a bunch of old bodies and lenses which I would love to be able to use, but I just don't want to mess around with film, so I was wondering whether it's possible to convert them to take digital images.

Answer

This has certainly been done with medium format SLRs that have interchangeable backs (e.g., Leaf and Phase One backs).

For a 35mm camera, the situation isn't nearly so positive. There was once a company that claimed to be working on a digital sensor that would be shaped like a 35mm film cannister with the sensor sticking out roughly like the film tongue. I'm reasonably certain they never produced even a partially working prototype, and even more certain they never put a product onto the market. Personally, I rather doubt it could be done.

In any case, the market opportunity for such a product is mostly past -- the vast majority of people who want to shoot digital have given up on the idea and bought digital bodies. Most have upgraded at least once by now, so used digital bodies are fairly common and quite reasonably priced...

Check more discussion of this question.

Why has no one invented a 4:5 aspect ratio APS-C/35mm-sized DSLR?

Question

People keep inventing different form factors and formats for cameras, but none seems to have hit on what seems (to me) like an obvious one. Why doesn't somebody build a camera with a sensor that has a 4x5 aspect ratio, but the diagonal size of the sensor the same as an APS-C and/or full-frame (35mm) sensor (and a mount compatible with their existing lens line)?

Maintaining the same diagonal size means this would remain compatible with (most?) existing lenses for the same mount. Since typical use would no longer involve cropping, a sensor with exactly the same number of sensels (and therefore, the same pitch/density/well size) as a current one would still have higher usable resolution.

Just FWIW, the sensor sizes seem to work out to around 18x23mm to work with APS-C lenses, and 27x34mm to work with full-frame lenses. Does anybody see a major downside to this idea?

Answer

The mirror has to be a lot bigger for 4x5, particularly at 90 degrees to the axis the mirror flips about. The shutter also gets bigger in the direction it has to move (there's a reason the shutter moves up and down not left to right). This means a slower moving mirror and shutter.

Another consequence of the bigger mirror is the lens mount has to be further away (greater registration distance), which gives you less space for the rear element and so you have to use a retrofocus design for normal lenses. You would also break compatibility with current lenses - despite the fact that the image circle is big enough, the mirror would hit the rear element!

Squarer formats are more common in medium and large format photography where more time is taken over a shot so a slow mirror/shutter can be tolerated (many use leaf shutters anyway) but anywhere where speed dominates, such as sports smaller and more elongated formats allow a little extra speed.

Another area where you tend to find 4:3 sensors is in compacts where you have no mirror to move. The only mass market 4:3 DSLR I can think of were the Olympus 43rds, and they're moving away from having mirrors...

Look at the full frame Canon 5D, it has a slower max shooting rate and a slower sync speed (a measure of how fast the shutter curtains move) than the equivalent APS-c model. Although Nikon have a high speed FF camera, it's extremely expensive, and I bet it would go faster with a smaller mirror.

Check more discussion of this question.