Helping a friend choose a camera - Part 4

My friend now hovers between the Canon 350D and 400D:

"Been alternatively working and researching on the net following your latest e-mail! This http://www.cameralabs.com/ in particular has been an excellent reference. These are my latest thoughts (which aren't that surprising, but the emphasis may have changed...)

1. To buy a EOS 400D for either £388 (body only) or for £449 (with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6II)

2. To buy the EOS 350 with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6II for £350

I'm increasingly swayed by option two in the sense that this will get my a v. good 'budget' camera with 'average' lens at a v. good price. The 400D has the 10 megapixels, but as you mention, the extra megapixels are not really relevant unless you want to do some seriously large prints etc. The other key disadvantage that has consistently come up about the 350 is that is has a measly sized viewfinder...is that something to discourage?

The question - possible the penultimate one is could you give a few (budget) examples of lenses you think would be worth considering investing in. You broadly - usefully - mentioned a few areas in the last e-mail without naming names.

A: PORTRAIT LENSES

B: PRIME LENSES

C: ???"

ps: in an earlier exchange, you mentioned investing in books... which book(s) would you recommend be useful?


My reply:

If the 350D fits the bill then I wouldn't worry about the viewfinder. The main thing is to get started with a body and build up a good collection of canon lenses. You can upgrade the body later and still use the lenses you invest in now. My Nikon D100 had a 'measly' viewfinder as well, but it wasn't that bad. They are just smaller than conventional 35mm SLRs (because the digital sensor is smaller than the traditional 35mm film frame). If you are worried about it go to Jessops and just ask to have a look.

One problem with the 18-55 is that it has a small minimum aperture (f3.5). You could invest in a prime lens or two to go along with it that could be used in low light situations or for shallow focus/depth of field. The canon 50mm/f1.8 is only about £70 and is pretty good (I use one). On the 350D it would actually be the equivalent of about 80mm on a normal SLR (because the sensor is smaller you have to multiply the standard focal length by 1.6 to get the equivalent on the 350D). I use the Tamron 90mm macro as a portrait lens (but my sensor is the same size as normal film - so-called 'full frame'). That Tamron would be equivalent to about 140mm on the 350D (not so useful for portraits for some).

Thus the 50mm/1.8 would make an excellent portrait lens (with it wide open you could be a reasonable distance from the sitter and blur the background).

You could also get a set of extension tubes to do macro photography (Kenko do them for about £100). I use these myself sometimes with the 50mm and with a Lensbaby (but that's another story).

If you want a more 'normal' prime lens you could go for a 28mm or 35mm prime. The 35/f2 is £175 and the 28/f2.5 is £130. You will get better results with primes than with the zoom in terms of sharpness. It's just a question of what you get for the money. A prime can be built to better specifications than a zoom at the same price because the optics are more complex in a zoom and have more work to do.

I would hold off getting anything wider than 28mm until you have played around with the 18mm end of the zoom. See if you like wide angle stuff. Some people do and some don't.

Another option would be to go for a longer zoom to complement the 18-55. There is a 55-200 for £124 but I wouldn't bank on excellent quality at this price. You really have to spend the money to get quality in zooms.

Another nice lens is the canon 60mm macro which you could use for close-up work and portraits. Not available new any more (cost about 300 I think). The new 60mm macro EFS costs £255. EFS lenses cannot be used on full frame cameras so if in future you decided to go full frame you couldn't use this lens.

There's an EF 50mm macro though for £175 (don't know anything about it).

This is already getting complicated again...

As to books there are loads, but it depends on the software you use. Photoshop or Lightroom books are useful. There are also 2 common ways of shooting digital: jpeg and raw. Start off with jpeg as it is easier and quicker, but then experiment with raw mode. The camera comes with a raw image editor. Believe me it makes a huge difference in quality over jpeg and allows you to correct mistakes pretty easily. Raw files are bigger, but they contain all the information that was collected by the camera when the shot was taken rather than the processed version (jpeg).

Books not about software depend on what your subject matter is going to be.