Buying one prime lens and 35mm Body: advice please

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I owned an EOS1 and EOS100 for many years and a number of years ago I decided to spend some time shooting only B&W with just the EOS 1 and a 50mm 1.8 my aim was to improve my photographic vision by using just the one lens. Even with the 50mm the EOS1 was large although the size did not bother me while I was using the camera it was heavy and cumbersome to carry when not actualy taking pictures.</p>

<p>It seems like you want to get away from a big camera with large lenses and I feel that just using the 50mm on an EOS1n or EOS3 will not really solve the size issue. If you want to stick with film then maybe take a look at some thing smaller the small fixed lens range finders by both Canon and Olympus are rather good if you like that sort of thing. I am not that into rangefinders when it comes to using them. I like the idea of them and own a couple of Canonets but in reality they are not quite my thing I can use use one without problems I like how quite they are in use but after a while I drift back to reflex cameras. Luckily my father gave me his unused FM2 with a 50mm 1.8 as a Christmas gift and I found it worked very well as a camera I can shoot with and carry all day if needed in reality I think the FE2 would be even better having apeture priority.</p>

<p>Today if I was going to buy some new gear I would probably look at a small sized DSLR with the sigma 30mm f1.4 or a 35mm f2. Another option would be the micro 4/3s panasonic GF1 with the 20mm f 1.7 pancake or the Olympus EP1 with the panasonic 20mm 1.7 pancake. In the end though it is not really about the equipment but how you actually use it.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Foot zoom can be pretty effective, though. Here is an old shot of me practicing foot zoom with a bunch of my chums back when. ;)</p><div></div>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Jamie, I take Derek to mean that "the EOS 3 is superior in every way" that affects image quality, which I doubt anyone would quibble with.</p>

<p>JDM, your post is quite simply side-splitting!</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Jamie, I take Derek to mean that "the EOS 3 is superior in every way" that affects image quality, which I doubt anyone would quibble with.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would certainly quibble with that.</p>

<p>The image quality of cropped sensor DSLRs is in virtually all ways at least equal to that of 35mm film media. (Yes, I know there are DOF differences, but either format could be regarded as "better" in this regard depending upon your preferences - so let's call that a draw.) In general you can get a better print at whatever size with a cropped sensor DSLR original than with a 35mm film original, at least when it comes to the sorts of film that you would likely use for street photography. (And a full frame DSLR is capable of considerably <em>better</em> image quality.)</p>

<p>The inexpensive cropped sensor Canon "rebel" series bodies can produce image quality equal to that produced by X0D cropped sensor bodies with essentially the same sensor. The differences between the rebels and the X0D models are largely functional and in areas that would not affect typical street photography work. If your idea of street is using a smallish SLR body with a prime, then the very small and light rebel bodies can do a fine job. The only reason not to use one is that such a camera might not fit your image of what a real street photographer would use.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

 

[james_bolger]

<p>Probably sniffed at in this company but a black Praktica BC1 is a small useful street camera. The 1.8 50mm is superb and the diagonally split focusing screen is more useful than the conventially split screens. And you can pick them up for peanuts. Tough camera with the metal body if you drop it or have to use it to defend yourself.</p>

[dwmitchell]

<p>To clarify my comments regarding the EOS 3 vs. the Digital Rebel XT, the Rebel XT is certainly capable of producing outstanding images. I certainly did not intend to imply that the XT creates images that are inferior to the EOS 3 (as this would open the whole film vs. digital debate). </p>

<p>My main issue with the Rebel XT is the auto focus performance...I personally find it difficult to nail focus with the Rebel when shooting wide open with fast primes. With the EOS 3 I can really count on the auto focus mechanism to nail the shot, which in the end will help me to produce a better shot than if I was shooting a similar shot with the XT.</p>

 

[randy_rubin]

<p>Thanks for all the help. I ended up making my decision based on economic principals. The EOS-1N was cheapest so I went for it. I also purchased the 50mm 1.4. I do have one question that may open a can of worms. <br>

I purchased a Tiffen UV protection filter and realized that this probably wasn't the smartest thing to do. I intend on returning it an buying a higher quality filter - something like the Hoya multiple coats. I searched the forum and all I could find were recommendations for the Hoya Super Multi-Coated Haze filter. This seems ok but I am really looking for as clear a filter as possible - the haze quality has me concerned. Any recommendations for other filters? I am looking to spend between $30 and $40. Thanks.</p>

[w_t1]

<p>I use NO filters other than polarizer when desired, or color for BW film. Why should I spend $900 for a lens and put a clear filter, no matter a cheap Tiffen or more expensive like B+W. Others will differ I'm sure.</p>

<p>I was going to suggest something like a Canonet G1.7 but u already got the 1n. I used a 50 1.4 (FD) lens for about a year when i started photography.</p>

[john_manganiello]

<p >Get the 5D Mk II and I agree with Jon Kobeck:..................</p>

 

<p>"If you want only one lens for street and general use, the 35mm 1.4L is the best. 50 is too tight in this city. 24mm is also good but but it is a little too wide for me. 35 is the perfect number"</p>

 

[timothy_smith1]

<p>Probably better to use the lens hood all the time, and only specialized filters as needed. Even if you get a small scratch or two, it won't reduce the contrast very much at all, and will not show up on the images.<br>

A comment on the "building discipline" that you mentioned in your first post. When I was young (many years ago), the best advice I got (from a pro) was: take your camera, your one 50mm lens, and for a year just shoot one film (Tri-X), develop it yourself, don't use a lightmeter. I did that, for almost a year, and it did turn me into a capable photographer. Too many choices makes you think that it's the choice that's wrong, rather than your technique or compositional ability.<br>

Have fun!</p>

 

[frank.schifano]

<p>Yeah, I've got to agree with Timothy on the subject of filters. I never use one unless I need it for an effect. It's better to use a lens hood, and to keep the lens cap on until you're ready to use the camera. The lens hood's reason for being is of course to combat flare, and that's always welcome; but it will also protect the lens from bumps and bruises. If you drop it, the filter won't help and neither will the lens hood.</p>