which dslr do you think i should choose from this list

[kangarulzx]

Canon 600D - Canon 650D
Canon 7D ,able to afford
Canon 6D ,not cheap but has full frame

im quite new to cameras but i do know a thing or two about apertures, iso settings etc.

what im interested is cheap camera body + more expensive lense. i was told combo lens are like toys and not even worth buying which i totally agree with

im thinking about the more expensive 35mm 1.4 L lense, (since the prices of lens does not degrade as quickly as camera body)
id like to take more view of the photo rather than portrait

with the crop factor of 7D or 600D series i think its 1.6 which makes 35mm lens translate to around 50mm. and 50mm lens to around 80mm etc.

and can anybody explain the advantage of the full frame camera to a non-full frame camera other than enabling you to take wider** pictures?


thank you!
kind regards

 

[redisburning]

well as you may imagine more light hits a full frame sensor than a crop sensor, so if all other things remain even then you will get better noise performance on the full frame. this USUALLY bears out in practice.

there is also a noticeable look to larger formats, all the way up to large format. personally, I find aps-c the smallest format that does not look distinctly like an overly small image frame, but I still prefer full frame.

I think it's important to buy lenses for the format you plan to shoot. it might seem counter-intuitive, but full frame lenses on crop cameras are often less than impressive.

all that being said, I would get the 6D or a 5DmkII and the Sigma 35/1.4. It is technically superior to the 35L. I would not spend 35L money on a lens for a crop camera. YMMV.

 

[Matus]

The advice above is a good one (I do shoot format larger than FX and can only confirm). I personally have not spent too much time thinking about DSLRs, but should I ever think more seriously about getting a DSLR (and haul all that weight) I would go with full frame. And the 6D is a very fine camera.

 

[teleparallel]

Aside from noise performance and shallower depth of field, FF don't offer that much, I think. If you're not going to make full advantage of it, just get crop.

Oh yes. FF cameras are gigantic, aside Leicas and the RX1. Before choose look at the size of the thing, specially with a 1.4/35mm L.

You do have small options tough. Voigtlander pancake collection seems nice, but they are manual focus.

Also, take a look at pentax options. I think they are great, specially if you choose not to go full-frame. They offer great prime options, optmized for APS-C sytem, with super high standards. The "Limited" lenses are super well built, with a nice lens collection. The cameras are weather sealed(the best in this regard), and performs super well.

 

[user237428934]

I think it's important to buy lenses for the format you plan to shoot. it might seem counter-intuitive, but full frame lenses on crop cameras are often less than impressive.

This may be true for zoom lenses but is not true for fixed lenses. The normal full frame lenses and the L-lenses do a good job on a crop body.

 

[Kenj8246]

Aw hell, just buy one of each and be done with it. 🙂

Kenny

 

[user237428934]

If you plan to shoot a lot of available light photos handheld, then FF cameras offer more quality with less noise.

Another advantage is, that you have more and cheaper options for fixed wide angle lenses.

 

[thegman]

I don't use digital, but if I was in the market for a DSLR, I'd get full frame, if only for the huge back catalogue of lenses you can use at their intended focal length, i.e. an ultra-wide is still ultra wide.

 

[user237428934]

and can anybody explain the advantage of the full frame camera to a non-full frame camera other than enabling you to take wider** pictures?

The point with wider pictures is not really true. There are good wide-angle zooms available for crop bodies. Your choice is not good, if you want fixed length wide angle lenses.

 

[redisburning]

This may be true for zoom lenses but is not true for fixed lenses. The normal full frame lenses and the L-lenses do a good job on a crop body.

there are a couple of reasons that I can't agree with you.

1. lenses have field curvature, and that field curvature contributes to the character of the lens. when you cut a large portion of the image circle off, you loose that. best case is you had a lens with a relatively flat field that is just boring, worst case you get a lens with ****ing awful edges and corners because the lens designers didn't design the lens for a crop. an example would be the 35/1.4 Lux R, which if you put on a crop and shot at f1.4 would lead you to believe it was horrendous but does OK on full frame.

2. your lenses are larger than they need to be, since they are made for a considerably larger image circle than you are using

3. the way contrast is distributed over the area is different. when you have a larger sensor you have a larger physical area for the lens to compress light into and, again all things being equal, you will have greater fine detail on a larger sensor.

 

[user237428934]

there are a couple of reasons that I can't agree with you.

1. lenses have field curvature, and that field curvature contributes to the character of the lens. when you cut a large portion of the image circle off, you loose that. best case is you had a lens with a relatively flat field that is just boring, worst case you get a lens with ****ing awful edges and corners because the lens designers didn't design the lens for a crop. an example would be the 35/1.4 Lux R, which if you put on a crop and shot at f1.4 would lead you to believe it was horrendous but does OK on full frame.

Never heard of that, but may be true.

Especially lenses with weak borders can benefit from a crop sensor.

 

[user237428934]

Oh yes. FF cameras are gigantic, aside Leicas and the RX1. Before choose look at the size of the thing, specially with a 1.4/35mm L.

Really? Gigantic? You are right with the 35L (don't own that). The body alone is not so much larger.

Image shows the cameras with comparable 35mm lenses.

 

[redisburning]

Image shows the cameras with comparable 35mm lenses.

well, sort of.

if you want a 35mm f2 SLR lens with comparable performance to the 35 cron ASPH, you really need to show a picture with the ZE 35/2 distagon, which is fairly large.

size and IQ often go hand in hand.

btw that appears to be a 28 elmarit D:

 

[user237428934]

well, sort of.

if you want a 35mm f2 SLR lens with comparable performance to the 35 cron ASPH, you really need to show a picture with the ZE 35/2 distagon, which is fairly large.

size and IQ often go hand in hand.

btw that appears to be a 28 elmarit D:

Yes, Elmarit-M. But it's an M8 so both have the same FOV.

The distagon and the old plastic 35/2 have almost the same resolution and edge sharpness. Only the bokeh and vignetting of the distagon is better.

 

[user237428934]

One point is definitely true: the faster Leica glass is much smaller than comparable full frame DSLR lenses.

 

[matthewm]

Setting the camera size battle aside (let's face it, a 5D is never going to be as compact as an M8 or M9 or GXR or anything like that). Obviously, the OP has decided on an SLR and probably couldn't afford even a well-used M8 in his budget.

That being said... I'd recommend a Canon 5D (Classic) and either the 35L or the new 35 f/2 USM IS lens. It'll save you about $400 and is a really, really good contender. I personally have the 35L and have taken some amazing photos with it. I'll probably be shot, hung up, disemboweled and beheaded for saying so, but I really do see the "L Difference" in lenses. My wife's 70-200 f/2.8 L beats the pants off of any 70-300 f/4-5.6 lens. And my 35L beats the pants off of most comparable lenses. I've read a good bit about this little 35 f/2 and it's smaller, lighter, just about a half a stop slower and has IS (which may or may not matter to you). It also comes in at $800 or so whereas the L counterpart comes in around the $1400 mark. Is the L worth it? I think so. But I haven't compared them side-by-side.

If you go with a crop body, I'd be tempted to go with the Canon 28 f/1.8 lens. It's a REALLY nice lens for the money. Build quality is well above where it should be and it's a small, lightweight, solid contender. On a crop body, it's roughly a 45 f/1.8. Really nice focal length for walking around (remember the Minolta 45 f/2 "Pancake"?). Pair it with the 50mm f/1.4 and you've got one heck of a setup. A 45 f/1.8 and an 80 f/1.4. Slap those two bad boys on a Canon T4i or T3i and you've got a small, light, fast kit for just about anything you'd want to do.

In my opinion, it's probably the closest you'll come to a "rangefinder" kit in a DSLR. If you can stomach the price and small size, that new little Rebel might be another option to consider if you really want to get as small as possible without going mirrorless (as far as I'm concerned, Canon doesn't make a mirrorless camera because that EOS M abomination was a complete and utter failure).

I have a 5D2 and a 5DC and I still reach for the 5DC when I'm going out walking or just goofing around. It's cheap to replace if something happens and the image quality still puts a smile on my face. Canon did something really, really right with that camera. Definitely give it a look.

Hope this helps!

 

[user237428934]

all that being said, I would get the 6D or a 5DmkII and the Sigma 35/1.4. It is technically superior to the 35L. I would not spend 35L money on a lens for a crop camera. YMMV.

If you get a sample with correctly working AF then the Sigma is a very fine lens. Still Sigma has problems offering constant AF performance in every sample (the same with the 50mm and 85mm lenses).

 

[redisburning]

The distagon and the old plastic 35/2 have almost the same resolution and edge sharpness. Only the bokeh and vignetting of the distagon is better.

the distagon is not built for terminal resolution, it's built for MASSIVE global contrast where it is in a class by itself. the Canon 50/1.4 has good resolution too but not very many people think of it when it comes to sharp lenses.

apparent sharpness is more complicated than pure resolution, a debate that was put to rest in the 1980s anyway as far as the lens makers were concerned.

If you get a sample with correctly working AF then the Sigma is a very fine lens. Still Sigma has problems offering constant AF performance in every sample (the same with the 50mm and 85mm lenses).

then you get one with a return policy and you get one that works properly. you would have to go through several samples of rigid summicrons to get one without haze if you were buying sight unseen, certainly the Sigma will be better than that. plus OP could end up with a camera that has AF adjust which will help out a lot.

if AF was bad on these lenses as a rule (ie nearly all the time) that might be a legitimate point but I have not seen any data on how many people have AF problems. obviously if you have a lens with an issue you are going to be very vocal about it but the Sigma 35/1.4 is very popular and the complaints seem to be smaller than I saw with Nikon's 70-200 / 2.8 VR II.

 

[kangarulzx]

thanks for the advice

lets say Rice= Camera body, Curry= Lens

Bad rice mixed with a high quality curry obviously still tastes very nice and no matter how good the rice is if the curry is crap the whole thing is bad so id rather invest more money into lens regardless on how bad the rice is (taken the sensors of 600d is equivalent to 7d which is already not that bad)


28 f/1.8 lens and 50 f/1.4 sounds good to me, but i was told ill just ended up buying a 50 f/1.2 when i play more with cameras why not just knife and invest for the more expensive lens in the first place so i would not have an unused 50 f/1.4 lying around the house (lazy to resell).

to my understanding, 600d,650d,60d have the same sensors and processors as 7D which are already very good and image quality produced by the 3 cameras and noise are practically the same, not to say the price of 600d,650d! and better video.

all thats difference maybe the build quality, weather seal, burst rate ,focal points etc. which i personally think its an overkill for my situation since im not interested in taking pictures of flying bird or running dogs

i understand full frame takes better pictures on high iso with lower noise, ive seen the comparison but i probably wont spend that much for a better "rice" when whats playing the most important factor is the "curry"

 

[matthewm]

All this talk of Rice and Curry has me craving Indian food. Alas, there isn't a decent Indian restaurant for 200 miles. Road trip? Perhaps...