EOS 100D. Good for a beginner? What did you start with?

[mapegl]

So before you scream that I should get a 6D, because it is sooooo much better: I know. My brother has one and it is amazeballs. So is the 100D a decent camera?

 

Short version: I am a beginner and want to get into photography a bit and also want some flexibility with lenses as well as a fairly compact package to carry around with me more often than not. Also dslrwould be appreciated.

 

Long story: I own an allrounder from Panasonic, the FZ100. It is pretty nice, but has a tiny sensor, which quickly limits possibilities. I love taking good photos  (surprise), but as soon as it just gets slightly darker than sunny I soon get problems with noise in pictures or anything they moves becomes blurry. 

I now want to upgrade a bit without completely breaking the bank and thus I was looking at the entry-level canon DSLRs  since my dad and brother also own high-end canons and would be able to lend me lenses and help me out with advice for taking good pics. The 1300D seems very basic and the next step up would either the 700D or the compact 100D. The 100D would be the cheaper option and since I plan to take it with me a lot, I appreciate the small size and lower weight. I am not super excited about the fixed screen, especially since I have a foldout one atm, but I guess one can't have eveything. I also rarely ever use it. And I am looking forward to having an actual viewfinder again.

 

So am I going completely wrong with this camera or does anybody have any experience with it? I have to say I have talked to a few people already and watched and read some test and they go both ways. Some say one should get a bigger camera with more features, however then i think I might not take it with me as often. Then again if it is a "piece of junk", the same might happen. ;-)

 

Also interesting would be to hear how you guys started with photography!

[m0k]

I started with a t2i (550d) , and still use it today 

from what i can see the 100D is pretty similar to the t2i....and i paid 1k for this thing new...

so i think for a beginner its a good for the price

[Sir Asvald]

My dad bought the camera so we can use it and It was tricky at first to learn on the buttons and what have you. After a while you'll naturally turn on the camera and select the settingt. It has a touch screen, there so many options and buttons on it, once you know what you want, then you're good.

 

I'd recommend you look at some tutorials, or even use your brothers camera. I'm sure they all operate the same.  

[xQubeZx]

Imo if size is the main issue foe you I'd look at Canons M series. (The mirrorless lineup) that together with the EF lens adapter they have would let you lend your brothers lenses as he has a 6D he will only have fullframe glass which is what works on that adapter. It is small and packs a lot of features. The EOS M5 is basically a small 80D. But there is cheaper options aswell as the M3. 

 

Personally I'd doubt the slight difference in size between a 100D and the 700D would be what makes you leave one at home. If thats the issue you should look at mirrorless options as the Canon M series. Also keep in mind what lenses you get will also impact the size and weight and sometimes make the size of the body not really matter. If you stick a 70-200 on any body it doesn't really matter if it weights 200g more or less. Kinda an issue with Sonys fullframe mirrorless. They are awesome and lightweight when you use pancake and small lenses but as soon as you want a tele zoom or any fast zoom they ger huge. 

[mapegl]

35 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

Imo if size is the main issue foe you I'd look at Canons M series. (The mirrorless lineup) that together with the EF lens adapter they have would let you lend your brothers lenses as he has a 6D he will only have fullframe glass which is what works on that adapter. It is small and packs a lot of features. The EOS M5 is basically a small 80D. But there is cheaper options aswell as the M3. 

 

Personally I'd doubt the slight difference in size between a 100D and the 700D would be what makes you leave one at home. If thats the issue you should look at mirrorless options as the Canon M series. Also keep in mind what lenses you get will also impact the size and weight and sometimes make the size of the body not really matter. If you stick a 70-200 on any body it doesn't really matter if it weights 200g more or less. Kinda an issue with Sonys fullframe mirrorless. They are awesome and lightweight when you use pancake and small lenses but as soon as you want a tele zoom or any fast zoom they ger huge. 

Well apparently the EOS M cameras have very bad autofocus so that's not really an option. 

Thanks for the input on the 100D vs 700D though. You are right I guess. I am kinda in love with the idea of a 100D with a pancake on it..... 

Really hard to get a good first DSLR, and I do want a DSLR. ;-)
 

[.spider.]

Why do you only focus on canon?

[mapegl]

3 hours ago, .spider. said:

Why do you only focus on canon?

Good question. Any alternatives you would suggest? ;-)

 

I haven't ordered anything yet, so feel free to tell me why I am completely and utterly stupid ;-) to go with Canon or why another camera might be better to start with. 

 

Honestly the main reason why I was looking at the 100D is the price. It can be had for around 450 while the other options I looked at are usually well above 500.

[cc143]

Given your brother has canon gear you will most likely appreceiate using, especially if the glass he has for his 6d is L glass or he has a few primes. Buying it for another system would be expensive and idiotic frankly. 

 

As far as the 100d, I completely agree that the difference in form factor doesn't make it more useable, in fact the ergonomics might be significantly worse. Therefore, I would get a 700d body used and look for a used copy of sigma or tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 over the kit lens. 

 

also, the m5 has a great AF system, since it basically uses the dual pixel af exlusively and must be very fast in its operation. I've only used the m3 once, briefly but it competes with my x-t10 and the a6000, even though, I would pick one of 5 the latter 2 if it were up to me and I had no glass available to use. 

 

My first proper camera I used was a Canon EOS 1000 and my first proper DSLR was the 350d. I just upgraded my eos 50d to the 5dmk3 last year.  I have shot many systems, including nikon's earlier pro line and entry level dslrs, minolta and Konica minolta and have owned a sony a6000 and currently own a fuji x-t10 as well. I can say that the features provided by the last 2 don't give an edge over canon's superior ecosystem (although fuji really does come close) and Canon and nikon's reliability (when it comes to dslrs mirrorless is another story). 

[xQubeZx]

I think the 700D is a good option. It provieds a good set of features for your price and is not too large. It will last you aswell without you wanting too much more in a body I think. Or well, your next step after that one may be to full frame or maybe a 7D series. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

23 hours ago, mapegl said:

I have to say I have talked to a few people already and watched and read some test and they go both ways. Some say one should get a bigger camera with more features, however then i think I might not take it with me as often. Then again if it is a "piece of junk", the same might happen. ;-)

It's a matter of balancing things out and figuring out what kind of camera you need to accomplish what you want to do.  Sometimes all I carry is my phone or an advanced compact, I don't necessarily carry my DSLRs with me all the time.

 

Go to a store that has various camera models on display, try them out, hold them in your hands and see how you feel about using it.

 

23 hours ago, mapegl said:

Short version: I am a beginner and want to get into photography a bit and also want some flexibility with lenses as well as a fairly compact package to carry around with me more often than not. Also dslrwould be appreciated.

Any entry level camera (primarily DSLRs/Mirrorless) would be suitable for you to learn and practice.  If you have friends/family who already own some Canon gear... buy a system that you can share or at least have someone who can help you familiarize yourself with the system.

 

19 hours ago, mapegl said:

Well apparently the EOS M cameras have very bad autofocus so that's not really an option. 

AF systems' performance depends on a lot of factors.  Available light (and aperture settings when taking photos, some AF systems start to degrade performance as you use smaller apertures), number of focus points (mainly what you want are more cross type focus points, but you don't necessarily need a camera with 100 AF points), the type of AF tracking system (phase detect, contract detect, etc.), speed of the focus motor (either in lens or in camera body), the type of AF tracking setting you use (and if you're going to be panning a moving object to take photos then also the performance and existence/lack of image stabilization).  But of course not all of these factors contribute equally to the performance of the system.

[mapegl]

On 14.8.2017 at 9:20 AM, AkiraDaarkst said:

...

 

On 13.8.2017 at 10:27 PM, xQubeZx said:

...

 

On 13.8.2017 at 8:40 PM, cc143 said:

...

 

 

 

So I know some of the people here might be disappointed now, but I got a really good deal on an EOS 100D and grabbed it. 270 instead of 470. I was actually looking at 700Ds as well, but they were all much more expensive. 

 

It is ordered, but I don't have it yet. It will come with an 18-55mm lens and I honestly can't wait to try it out.

 

I am also thinking about a second lense and was thinking about a 50mm f/1.8. They are very cheap in comparison and I kinda like the idea of having a fixed lenses for some artsy shots and at the same time having a lense with great low light performance. Anyone any experience with a 50mm prime? Or prime lenses in general?

[cc143]

7 hours ago, mapegl said:

 

 

 

 

 

So I know some of the people here might be disappointed now, but I got a really good deal on an EOS 100D and grabbed it. 270 instead of 470. I was actually looking at 700Ds as well, but they were all much more expensive. 

 

It is ordered, but I don't have it yet. It will come with an 18-55mm lens and I honestly can't wait to try it out.

 

I am also thinking about a second lense and was thinking about a 50mm f/1.8. They are very cheap in comparison and I kinda like the idea of having a fixed lenses for some artsy shots and at the same time having a lense with great low light performance. Anyone any experience with a 50mm prime? Or prime lenses in general?

I personally own the 50 1.4 but have used the 1.8 on some occasionsand have to say the new version is amazing value for money. Personally, I prefer the 35mm equivalent focal length, but those are way to expensive usually. 

 

Basically, 50 is the focal length to go for on Canon cameras especially since they provide such a cheap option. Also, using a prime will probably help you learn more in my opinion, you can really understand DoF etc when learning while using I prime much easier than with most kit lenses. 

 

In short, yes definitely get a 50mm 1.8

[mapegl]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

I personally own the 50 1.4 but have used the 1.8 on some occasionsand have to say the new version is amazing value for money. Personally, I prefer the 35mm equivalent focal length, but those are way to expensive usually. 

 

Basically, 50 is the focal length to go for on Canon cameras especially since they provide such a cheap option. Also, using a prime will probably help you learn more in my opinion, you can really understand DoF etc when learning while using I prime much easier than with most kit lenses. 

 

In short, yes definitely get a 50mm 1.8

Nice. Thank you. I actually watched a video which compared the 50mm 1.8 with a few others and it pretty much was suggested as the go-to for beginners  due to the good performance and affordability.  

 

I am looking for used ones on eBay atm, since I already bought the camera and saving a few bucks would be nice. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

33 minutes ago, mapegl said:

Nice. Thank you. I actually watched a video which compared the 50mm 1.8 with a few others and it pretty much was suggested as the go-to for beginners  due to the good performance and affordability.  

 

I am looking for used ones on eBay atm, since I already bought the camera and saving a few bucks would be nice. 

You buy a lens based on what you need, not because someone said it's good for beginners.

[mapegl]

5 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

You buy a lens based on what you need, not because someone said it's good for beginners.

True. Therme were suggested lenses for different use cases, but I am interested in street photography and since you cannot get up close into the face of a German, this seems pretty good

[cc143]

7 hours ago, mapegl said:

True. Therme were suggested lenses for different use cases, but I am interested in street photography and since you cannot get up close into the face of a German, this seems pretty good

For street stuff I find the 50 to be too tight on FF, nevermind APS-C where its basically an 80mm.

 

Look at the 24mm f/2.8 STM. Its a crop pancake lens that is basically a 40mm equivalent, which I find more suitable for street stuff, its fairly priced, really compact (which means along with a 100d you will be pretty inconspicuous and could probably put the camera in a hoody pocket), very quiet, so it could potentially be used for video as well. 

 

It doesn't have that wide an aperture as the 50 1.8, but it is quite a bit faster than the kit lens at 24mm.

[mapegl]

10 minutes ago, cc143 said:

For street stuff I find the 50 to be too tight on FF, nevermind APS-C where its basically an 80mm.

 

Look at the 24mm f/2.8 STM. Its a crop pancake lens that is basically a 40mm equivalent, which I find more suitable for street stuff, its fairly priced, really compact (which means along with a 100d you will be pretty inconspicuous and could probably put the camera in a hoody pocket), very quiet, so it could potentially be used for video as well. 

 

It doesn't have that wide an aperture as the 50 1.8, but it is quite a bit faster than the kit lens at 24mm.

That is a great combo. True. And I really like the thought of having such a compact setup. I guess I should go for the 24 then and maybe a 50 later ;-)