Micro four thirds

[corkeye]

So I got an olympus pen (epl-5) recently. Very impressed tbh and a gargantuan step up from my previous compact!

I have no idea what I'm doing though and need to practise!

I wanted a high performing camera, as I have a baby due any time now and wanted high quality pictures.

I was very close to purchasing a digital slr, but the bulky feel / lack of ease to transport (especially if I'm transporting baby) made me swing to micro 4/3.

The kit lense (zoom lense) i am impressed with but I have read that I really need to get a prime lense. Does anyone have any recommendations for a deece prime lense? I have been eyeing up pancake lenses

[Graham C]

You don't really need one, but they do tend to be better quality than zoom lenses, and lenses you buy separate will tend to be better quality than kit lenses. That said, there's probably nothing wrong with the lens that comes with it.   Which one you get really depends on what you want to  do with the lens.   There's no point buying a pancake lenses (or any other wide angle lens) if you want to take wildlife shots for example. You'll also find that you need to move about more with a prime lens than with a zoom lens as you can't zoom in to get closer.

If you want to get a prime lens for portraits, get something with a wide aperture range, this will allow you a greater depth of field and be helpful in lower light conditions.  Personally I think you need to know why you are buying a lens rather than because you've seen somewhere that they are better quality, especially if you think that you are taking good quality photos already.  Buying lenses can be pretty addictive but the last thing you want is to fork out a load of money and find that you don't use it that often because it doesn't do what you want.

[corkeye]

Thanks for the detailed reply, you have given me some really good advice. What body/lenses do you have btw and what lenses have you got in your collection? I have been eyeing up a pancake really for everyday 'street' shots, close up pics of the baby, and also family portraits. As pancakes are majorly thin they also are great for socking in your bag I'd imagine.

[Graham C]

I've got an oldish Canon 450D, would quite like to upgrade to a 7D or even a 5D MkII but don't really have the cash spare to justify it at the moment.

The first lens I bought was a Sigma 24-70mm lens, it's lovely and offered a bit of a longer range and much better quality than the 18-55mm kit lens.  It's on my camera most of the time and I don't use the kit lens anymore.   Then I decided that I'd like to get into macro photography so I got my first prime, a 150mm Sigma macro lens.  I also have a Sigma 70-300mm zoom lens, it's only a cheapy but handy for wildlife and sports.  I'd like to get a better zoom, thinking of the 150-500mm Sigma but at £600, it's on hold for now.  I also have a 1.8 50mm prime Canon lens, these are great, only about £70 from Amazon and takes great photos for such a cheap lens.  Went for Sigma as they're cheaper than the Canon lenses.  If I get the full frame 5D, I think I'd have to replace most of the lenses and will get the Canon ones *gulp*

[corkeye]

 Ah ok so u have a DSLR, how do u find them for transporting about? Would u consider a m 4/3 like mine or do u feel the compromise is simply too great? I have just looked through your pics linked on you signature and they look v good

[Graham C]

Thanks, I haven't updated my photo albums for a while, I must get round to it!

I don't really know anything about the smaller lens changeable cameras but they look great.  I expect yours can do much more than mine and wouldn't expect any comprise in the quality of photos, I'm sure they're fine.   I think when you move up to a full frame camera then you notice a difference but at my level I doubt there's anything in it.  I quite like the Nikon one that was advertised on tele a bit back but if I'm going to invest that sort of money I'd be better off getting something to suit my existing set up.

I wouldn't get one now as I'm all set up for DSLR's.  The 4/3's system would mean a whole new lens range too.  Carrying one around doesn't bother me any more. I select my lenses for the occasion/day ahead and crack on.  It can weigh a bit though. I took a trip to London once with a couple of my heavier lenses and my tripod, got there looking forward to shooting some night shots around the South Bank only to realise that I'd left my battery in the charger at home.  Wasn't best pleased that day.    Generally it's not a problem,  you'd have the same lens changing issues as any SLR user and the difference in weight probably isn't much for day to day use.  I have a rucksack camera bag so can store other things in the top compartment anyway so it's handy to carry about.

We do have a point and shoot compact too.

[jgcblack]

I took up amateur photography a year or two ago, got myself a baby dslr - cannon 1000.

Its simple, light, easily transportable.

I guess the way I look at it, is...
If im planning to take photos, ill take the dslr.. Its only a kilo or two, size of a small lunchbox when put in it's case and it takes some really nice snaps.
If I want to be able to take photos but that isn't my aim then I would keep my phone or compact handy.


With regards to lenses, I scan read above and there is some good advice already.  Work out WHAT you went to do, then HOW to do it.

Primes are often better 'glass' however the awkwardness of having to physically move because you now have NO zoom at all. Is surprisingly frustrating for non professionals.
There are plenty of mid-range 55-175mm the lenses that will do close to everything except very specialist wide angle stuff.

My advice would be pickup a copy or two of 'digital camera'.. I've found them to be a very neutral magazine with a lot of good tipels and websites to look at.

[corkeye]

Good shout on a magazine will pick one up

How much moving about do you actually have to do with a prime lens? Is I difficult to focus?

Also do either of you two have a shutter cable for long exposures?

[Graham C]

How far do you have to move?  It's the same is how long is a piece of string?  You have to move to frame your shot the way you want it.  It's not hard to do, in fact it should be dead easy but the fact is that plenty of people don't move.  A prime example (I mean no offense here to the shot taker) is in the photo thread by Woodsey, Leethefish posted a photo of a lovely sunset time with a fence reflecting in the floods, but (and this is where I mean no offense Lee and I know you didn't ask for constructive criticism and we're all guilty of it) it's clearly taken from a car and you can not only see a bit of it in the bottom left, but the top left also has a bit of the door arch and there's a large chunk of tarmac before you get to what the photo is actually from.  All it takes is to get out of the car and walk towards the edge of the water.  Easy to do, but most people don't.  Red edited it to a better shot, even if it's still a little wonky  As to whether or not you find it easy to move, just stick your kit lens on say 35mm and see how you get on without zooming in.  It's no harder to focus a shot on a prime lens than a zoom, unless  your subject is moving maybe.

I have a remote shutter release.  It's not just for long exposures, it's for when you don't want the camera to move at all when you press the button.  You'd need a tripod (beanbag maybe) set up to make it worthwhile.  I tend to use it for long exposures but also for macro shots where I'm so close up, the slightest movement makes a huge difference but the subject also needs to not move.

Digital Camera is a nice mag, I get that each month.   It has some great articles and lots of amazing shots in each issue but they tell you how they took them which is the bit I like.  It also comes with a handy pocket sized leaflet with an easy guide for months topic (say easy settings for Landscapes etc) and a disc with tutorials on (not sure if they're just for subscribers or not).  The discs are probably great if you get round to using them, I don't think I ever have.   

[Tractor]

From my experience (not too much) the prime I have is really a lot harder to focus but when you do get it right it really pops. I also have a 24-70mm 2.8f and to be honest that is on the camera 95% of the time.
As others have already stated the moving around is a pain with a prime, where a zoom can do pretty much everything for an amateur without any hassles.
Probably best to go to your local camera shop and try one out and magazines are good too.

Best of luck!

[corkeye]

How far do you have to move?  It's the same is how long is a piece of string?  You have to move to frame your shot the way you want it.  It's not hard to do, in fact it should be dead easy but the fact is that plenty of people don't move.  A prime example (I mean no offense here to the shot taker) is in the photo thread by Woodsey, Leethefish posted a photo of a lovely sunset time with a fence reflecting in the floods, but (and this is where I mean no offense Lee and I know you didn't ask for constructive criticism and we're all guilty of it) it's clearly taken from a car and you can not only see a bit of it in the bottom left, but the top left also has a bit of the door arch and there's a large chunk of tarmac before you get to what the photo is actually from.  All it takes is to get out of the car and walk towards the edge of the water.  Easy to do, but most people don't.  Red edited it to a better shot, even if it's still a little wonky  As to whether or not you find it easy to move, just stick your kit lens on say 35mm and see how you get on without zooming in.  It's no harder to focus a shot on a prime lens than a zoom, unless  your subject is moving maybe.

I have a remote shutter release.  It's not just for long exposures, it's for when you don't want the camera to move at all when you press the button.  You'd need a tripod (beanbag maybe) set up to make it worthwhile.  I tend to use it for long exposures but also for macro shots where I'm so close up, the slightest movement makes a huge difference but the subject also needs to not move.

Digital Camera is a nice mag, I get that each month.   It has some great articles and lots of amazing shots in each issue but they tell you how they took them which is the bit I like.  It also comes with a handy pocket sized leaflet with an easy guide for months topic (say easy settings for Landscapes etc) and a disc with tutorials on (not sure if they're just for subscribers or not).  The discs are probably great if you get round to using them, I don't think I ever have.  

Thanks and I  will give it that mag a try.

From my experience (not too much) the prime I have is really a lot harder to focus but when you do get it right it really pops. I also have a 24-70mm 2.8f and to be honest that is on the camera 95% of the time.
As others have already stated the moving around is a pain with a prime, where a zoom can do pretty much everything for an amateur without any hassles.
Probably best to go to your local camera shop and try one out and magazines are good too.

Best of luck!

Thanks for the advice

I think I will save up for a prime and get to a shop to play about on a few different types