I can't adjust it enough for my eyesight without the specs. I know you can get different viewfinder dioptre thingies, but I've not heard a good thing about them. I see enough of the viewfinder to frame properly and see the readout below the image.



If you plan on skiing with a camera, then a full frame DSLR with a couple of lenses will probably cramp your style. I'd think in terms of a good compact or 4/3rds that you can slip in a bumbag or small backpack. A good compact won't make you cry so much if you happen to fall and break it...

As Mark said, it's not about the gear. It's very easy to get hung up on megapixels and frame size; the current religion is low light performance, before it was frames per second, before that how fast was the autofocus. You really need to work out what sort of photography you plan on doing and buy a camera or system that works for that. Don't try to run before you can walk.

Mark, thanks for the SPAG police. I should know better. I want to take better "looking" photos. I'll give you an example:



I took this on my friends 500D in Italy. I have no idea what settings it was on, it might've even been the dreaded auto. I've then played with it a very tiny bit in Lightroom.

The difference between how that subjectively looks to me and how it would've looked taken on my compact, is huge. There's something about proper glass and a bigger sensor which I can't define beyond "it looks way better". As for a purpose, I'm thinking with the mountains in mind, and other travel. So I suppose primary uses would be "sports" (skiing), landscapes and I love night photography and low light. I'm also potentially interested in HDR. Large prints are of interest. Especially of the skiing.

Al, thanks for that and those links. Off to have a read. Knowing nothing, the 24-105 sounds like it might a useful replacement for a kit lens for my intended application - thoughts?

I didn't know that there was dioptic adjustment on cameras. But I doubt it'll cover astigmatism. The other problem I'll have in that regard is that in the snow I'm ofting shooting with polarised sunglasses as I won't have my regular glasses with me. With an LCD screen this is fine, but it's more difficult with an EVF. For example with the new EOS-M, there is a screen but no viewfinder. Would that suit me better? Or would you just shout at me for wearing sunglasses when shooting?

Finally, as to Heather's point. I've had some pretty high speed fails with my Lumix TZ in my leg/cargo pocket (in a small neoprene case) and it's been fine. This would be more of a have it in my bag and whip it out when shooting for a bit/stationary. The compact would still be for those moments that unfold before I could take the bag of my back.

Thanks for your patience guys. I did title the thread appropriately!

If you get a small sensor camera, then remember it'll effectively be 40-170mm. Also it may be false economy to buy a cheap lens to replace the kit lens. The good Canon EF 24-105mm lens is more expensive than most of the Canon bodies alone.

I would say stick with the kit lens - it'll be good enough to get you started. Perhaps add a mid-range zoom (55-250mm) to begin with. You can sometimes find these lenses as a bundle with a body. It's worth shopping around.

http://www.wexphotographic.com/canon-fi ... &ShowAll=1

That's the current range of Canon lenses, sorted by price. EF lenses fit all EOS DSLR bodies, EF-S only fit the small sensor bodies.

Apologies for the Canon bias. It's what I know best, being a Canonista. Other camera and lens makers are also available.

Polarised lenses can be very beneficial, especially in certain conditions such as snow, water and mountains with plenty of sunlight. If you wear polarised sunnies and your camera doesn't then the images you capture may disappoint.

Also polarised sunnies may interfere with an image you frame/review on an LCD by making it dark. If it works in landscape then it will be dark in portrait or vice versa (although sometimes this blackout effect may be more noticeable at other angles).

If your camera lens has a polarised filter and you have polarised sunnies then again you can get blackout.

Wexphoto have this EOS 650D and lens bundle on the go right now.

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-cano ... s/p1531369

Ooh! Free bag!

+1

Learn the camera first, and once you know it well and start to reach the capabilities of the lens then consider purchasing new kit.

One thought about an EVF - some of them are hard to read in bright light. The sort of light you might expect to find somewhere very white, and reflective. At altitude. On a clear day.

I'd budget for at least two spare batteries in that case.

So all in all. It's fracking expensive. In a nutshell.

That being the case, is a seond hand 400D a sensible purchase to then have a play with one or two lenses max?! For now at least?

Having read your recommended posts Al, I'm very interested in the second hand/last years model vibe. What else can I get in a body for a couple of hundred quid that will allow me to learn?

And without wanting to start a flame war (or garner requests for me to go to my local camera shop and have a play, coz you obviously don't realise where I live!) can the fundamental differences between Nikon and Canon by summarised easily? Are they better at different applications for instance? Are the lenses interchangeable?

In terms of DSLRs I only have experience using Pentax bodies so that's where I looked first.

The K-5 is available with an 18-135mm Water Resistant lens for £1k (the body is also WR). I quite like that as a starting option, especially the WR for outdoor use. A spare battery, bag and a couple of SDHC cards and you're good to go - about £1200 I reckon. Of course the lens isn't particularly fast but then it depends what you're spending.

With money to burn I'd take the 15mm, 31mm and 77mm Pentax limited prime lenses

Lenses are not interchangeable between Canon and Nikon without an adapter.
There are no fundamental differences at the moment for you, because you don't already have lenses for either.
Once you've invested in glass, you tend to stick with that particular make, because of the associated costs with replacing everything.

Mark

I just want to point out that Pentax, Sony and Sigma also currently make DSLRs

Thanks

So in light of that and this:



How does one differentiate between the brands? All I know so far is that Mark, Jimmy Olsen and Peter Parker use Nikon and everybody else seems to use Canon.



This is interesting, coz outdoor (and winter) use will be one of, if not THE, primary uses of the camera.

Still, any ideas on cheapy second hand bodies to get me access to learning and interchangeable lenses? Anything that I NEED to go to a certain age or newer for (with my intended applications)?

New sig! (8+D

Mark

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/09/us-soldier-shows-off-the-hardcore-dust-and-weather-sealing-of-his-2-pentax-slrs/ then you should see this!

Re. Canon and Nikon.
We have both in the department at work.
Nikon D300s, D90s, D40s, D3000s, lots of Nikon glass.
A few Canon 550Ds, a couple of EOS film bodies. Some Canon glass.

The hardest working cameras - the ones that go out most often? The Canons.
We seem to struggle getting the D300 or any of the D90s to be as sharp as the Canons - now to qualify that, I have a feeling that the bodies need to go back to Nikon for calibration and it's almost certainly an issue that could occur with the Canons.
Most people seem to get on better with the Canon UI, rather than the Nikons.
But go and play with some and see what works for you; there's no right or wrong answer.