New camera

[chuasam]

Use all the lenses----but typically with no autofocusing. Meaning fewer keepers on action shots, or moving subjects. "System native lenses" are what beginners will shoot best with. Using adapted lenses is often a sacrifice or a compromise.

I’m not a beginner and I still avoid adapting lenses.

 

[beagle100]

Use all the lenses----but typically with no autofocusing. Meaning fewer keepers on action shots, or moving subjects. "System native lenses" are what beginners will shoot best with. Using adapted lenses is often a sacrifice or a compromise.

I’m not a beginner and I still avoid adapting lenses.

OK, but adapted lenses perform just as good as 'native' lenses .. and in some cases better
(depending on the system)
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Derrel]

I'm sorry beagle100, but I can not agree with your statement that, "adapted lenses perform just as good as 'native lenses". Why? Because with an adapted lens, there's no EXIF reporting to the camera. So there's no multi-segment or evaluative light metering; there's no multi-segment flash metering or flash control; there's no EXIF metadata embedded in the files,so automatic lens correction profiles in Lightroom or other raw developers have zero idea what lens made the file. There's no autofocusing available in most adapted lens scenarios, so there's NO way to follow-focus, or shoot rapidly-moving subjects (from kids to pets to sports, birds, whatever) with assurance of having a decent hit-rate on focusing. All in all--adapted lenses are a HUGE step backwards in most cases. Are there AF-capable adapters? In some cases, yes. Is the focusing of adapted lenses as fast and reliable and as good as system-native lenses? Uhhhhh...doesn't seem to be...

You keep pushing the idea, which is a half-truth, that mirrorless lenses can as you put it, "use all the d-slr lenses"....and you leave that highly un-qualified and very misleading statement out there, and this is perhaps the tenth time I've seen it, and I just want to respond with a bit of more-accurate,nuanced truth. Adapted lenses are _usable_, but they are, in most cases, a detriment to the overall shooting and post-processing endeavor!

Modern digital cameras depend to some degree on having 1) autofocusing 2)sophisticated light metering 3)sophisticated flash metering and control and 4) EXIF information that can be used for multiple purposes, perhaps the most-important of which is lens correction profiles.

I've shot adapted, legacy 35mm lenses on Canon and Nikon cameras. Adapted lenses are _never_ as easy to use and as seamlessly integrated as are system-native-mount, same-era lenses. However-they CAN be used!, but not with the same degree of seamless integration and ease of use as system-native lenses.

 

[petrochemist]

I'm sorry beagle100, but I can not agree with your statement that, "adapted lenses perform just as good as 'native lenses". Why? Because with an adapted lens, there's no EXIF reporting to the camera. So there's no multi-segment or evaluative light metering; there's no multi-segment flash metering or flash control; there's no EXIF metadata embedded in the files,so automatic lens correction profiles in Lightroom or other raw developers have zero idea what lens made the file. There's no autofocusing available in most adapted lens scenarios, so there's NO way to follow-focus, or shoot rapidly-moving subjects (from kids to pets to sports, birds, whatever) with assurance of having a decent hit-rate on focusing. All in all--adapted lenses are a HUGE step backwards in most cases. Are there AF-capable adapters? In some cases, yes. Is the focusing of adapted lenses as fast and reliable and as good as system-native lenses? Uhhhhh...doesn't seem to be...

You keep pushing the idea, which is a half-truth, that mirrorless lenses can as you put it, "use all the d-slr lenses"....and you leave that highly un-qualified and very misleading statement out there, and this is perhaps the tenth time I've seen it, and I just want to respond with a bit of more-accurate,nuanced truth. Adapted lenses are _usable_, but they are, in most cases, a detriment to the overall shooting and post-processing endeavor!

Modern digital cameras depend to some degree on having 1) autofocusing 2)sophisticated light metering 3)sophisticated flash metering and control and 4) EXIF information that can be used for multiple purposes, perhaps the most-important of which is lens correction profiles.

I've shot adapted, legacy 35mm lenses on Canon and Nikon cameras. Adapted lenses are _never_ as easy to use and as seamlessly integrated as are system-native-mount, same-era lenses. However-they CAN be used!, but not with the same degree of seamless integration and ease of use as system-native lenses.

There may be no multi-segment metering with your camera but this isn't the case with all cameras.
There are system native lenses that have no AF and others which are basically c**p optically.
There are now adapters that will automatically fine tune focus just about any lens that can be mounted on them (by incorporating movement of the mount).

A good lens adapted to a mirrorless camera can be considerably better than a poor native one.
Generally yes, they are less convenient to use than native lenses, but the results can be every bit as good - sometimes results are actually helped by the lack of automation.

 

[BrentC]

I'm sorry beagle100, but I can not agree with your statement that, "adapted lenses perform just as good as 'native lenses". Why? Because with an adapted lens, there's no EXIF reporting to the camera. So there's no multi-segment or evaluative light metering; there's no multi-segment flash metering or flash control; there's no EXIF metadata embedded in the files,so automatic lens correction profiles in Lightroom or other raw developers have zero idea what lens made the file. There's no autofocusing available in most adapted lens scenarios, so there's NO way to follow-focus, or shoot rapidly-moving subjects (from kids to pets to sports, birds, whatever) with assurance of having a decent hit-rate on focusing. All in all--adapted lenses are a HUGE step backwards in most cases. Are there AF-capable adapters? In some cases, yes. Is the focusing of adapted lenses as fast and reliable and as good as system-native lenses? Uhhhhh...doesn't seem to be...

You keep pushing the idea, which is a half-truth, that mirrorless lenses can as you put it, "use all the d-slr lenses"....and you leave that highly un-qualified and very misleading statement out there, and this is perhaps the tenth time I've seen it, and I just want to respond with a bit of more-accurate,nuanced truth. Adapted lenses are _usable_, but they are, in most cases, a detriment to the overall shooting and post-processing endeavor!

Modern digital cameras depend to some degree on having 1) autofocusing 2)sophisticated light metering 3)sophisticated flash metering and control and 4) EXIF information that can be used for multiple purposes, perhaps the most-important of which is lens correction profiles.

I've shot adapted, legacy 35mm lenses on Canon and Nikon cameras. Adapted lenses are _never_ as easy to use and as seamlessly integrated as are system-native-mount, same-era lenses. However-they CAN be used!, but not with the same degree of seamless integration and ease of use as system-native lenses.

You need to look at Metabones speedboosters. They can actually make the adapted lenses even better. Boost F-stop by a stop, does AF and fast. My cousin does documentaries and uses a GH5 with metabones speedbooster and Canon lens.

 

[Derrel]

yeah...Metabones speed adapters....

Metabones Ultra 0.71x Adapter

A mere $649 to adapt Canon EF lenses to m4/3 cameras.

This adapter for Nikon G-series lenses is a mere $479.
Metabones Speed Booster XL 0.64x Adapter MB_SPNFG-M43-BM2 B&H


I think the majority of newbies will not pay $649, or even $449, to adapt old, non-native lenses to their tiny-sensored cameras. Who wants to drop $649 to adapt a $40 Canon 50/1.8 "iffy fifty" to a nice m4/3 body? Would it be cost-effective to graft a $50 Nikon 35-70mm f/3.3~4.5 zoom lens by buying a $449 adapter? Or is it smarter to buy a superb system-native lens from Olympus?


Please note that I wrote, "There's no autofocusing avaiable in most adapted lens scenarios." Not in all scenarios, but in 99% of scenarios...most people have a $15-$40 adapter that provides nothing advantageous, just the ability to use non-native lenses, with all the drawbacks that entails. Of course, if they have $679 plus shipping, or $449 plus shipping, they could get some decent Canon AF or Nikon AF glass, and have it autofocus on their "selected micro four-thirds cameras", to use Adorama's words!

I think the majority of newbies will not pay $640, or even $449, to adapt old, non-native lenses to their tiny-sensored cameras. People who constantly sing the praises of using non-native,or legacy lenses, on mirrorless cameras are propagating a cannard when they try to spin it and make it sound as if there are NO drawbacks to using outdated lenses on new, AF cameras. EXPERTS can work around limitations, but seriously, modern, AF lenses SUCK when a human is trying to adjust them for focus...the throws are so hair-trigger on many new-era AF lenses that manually setting the correct focus point can be very challenging for people who are less than experts.

There's zero doubt in my mind that system-native, modern, autofocusing lenses are _the absolute best_ performers for the majority of use scenarios. Take a Canon EF lens and try to manually focus it indoors in low light at a gymnastics meet or basketball game performance of your high school daughter or son...you'd be lucky to get a 50% focus hit rate on shots if you're manually focusing it at 15 to 75 feet...at those ranges, most AF lenses focus so,so,soooo poorly by hand-and-eye that it's not even funny. They were built for a computer to drive and focus...not a human eye and brain.

People who want to emphasize "possibilities" as a way to entice beginners and intermediates into thinking that their mirrorless body can "leverage" the d-slr lenses Canon and Nikon have been making for 30 years are doing a huge disservice to people. Tell them the truth: if you want a lens that shoots and focuses perfectly,under tough conditions--then you want a SYSTEM-NATIVE Autofocusing lens, one designed and built for 100% compatibility and high-level functionality for your camera's mount. Not some 50,40,or 30- or even 10-year-old lens that's been grafted onto your camera. If you are happy with 40 or 50% rejected shots due to missed focus, then by all means...feel free to adapt legacy lenses,and enjoy them for what they are, and how they work...just don't be too surprised when you take the camera out and blow shot after shot after shot under marginal to tough conditions.

FOCUSING dead-on has never been more critical than it is today. Missing focus by even a foot at under 30 feet can blow a shot. Missing focus by three inches at 10 feet can easily blow a portrait. Experts can handle limitations in gear: beginners and intermediate level shooters benefit hugely from good equipment that functions at the current, high level of modern AF lenses on their _own_ system's body lineup. Olympus and Sony and Fuji have superb lenses....BUY them, use them, get top-tier performance from them.

 

[chuasam]

yeah...Metabones speed adapters....

Metabones Ultra 0.71x Adapter

A mere $649 to adapt Canon EF lenses to m4/3 cameras.

I’m likely getting the Laowa 25mm macro with the Nikon to MfT adapter.

 

[beagle100]

I'
sorry beagle100, but I can not agree with your statement that, "adapted lenses perform just as good as 'native lenses". Why? Because with an adapted lens, there's no EXIF reporting to the camera. HUGE step backwards in most cases. Are there AF-capable adapters? In some cases, yes. Is the focusing of adapted lenses as fast and reliable and as good as system-native lenses? Uhhhhh...doesn't seem to be...
I've shot adapted, legacy 35mm lenses on Canon and Nikon cameras. Adapted lenses are _never_ as easy to use and as seamlessly integrated as are system-native-mount, same-era lenses. However-they CAN be used!, but not with the same degree of seamless integration and ease of use as system-native lenses.

actually with adapted lenses there is full EXIF reporting to the camera
Uhhhh .... yes, seamless integrated .... just as good
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Derrel]

I'
sorry beagle100, but I can not agree with your statement that, "adapted lenses perform just as good as 'native lenses". Why? Because with an adapted lens, there's no EXIF reporting to the camera. HUGE step backwards in most cases. Are there AF-capable adapters? In some cases, yes. Is the focusing of adapted lenses as fast and reliable and as good as system-native lenses? Uhhhhh...doesn't seem to be...
I've shot adapted, legacy 35mm lenses on Canon and Nikon cameras. Adapted lenses are _never_ as easy to use and as seamlessly integrated as are system-native-mount, same-era lenses. However-they CAN be used!, but not with the same degree of seamless integration and ease of use as system-native lenses.

actually with adapted lenses there is full EXIF reporting to the camera
Uhhhh .... yes, seamless integrated .... just as good
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

Yeah..and at only $679 to $449 for a decent adapter...and slower AF than native lenses designed by the camera's manufacturer...sure "just as good". The cannard continues...you seldom back up your points, just keep repeating half-truths. Just as deceptive as always...

I'd love to see the Sears 70-210mm f/3.8~4.5 1975 lens versus a modern Olympus zoom.

"just as good". Sure.

 

[beagle100]

I'
sorry beagle100, but I can not agree with your statement that, "adapted lenses perform just as good as 'native lenses". Why? Because with an adapted lens, there's no EXIF reporting to the camera. HUGE step backwards in most cases. Are there AF-capable adapters? In some cases, yes. Is the focusing of adapted lenses as fast and reliable and as good as system-native lenses? Uhhhhh...doesn't seem to be...
I've shot adapted, legacy 35mm lenses on Canon and Nikon cameras. Adapted lenses are _never_ as easy to use and as seamlessly integrated as are system-native-mount, same-era lenses. However-they CAN be used!, but not with the same degree of seamless integration and ease of use as system-native lenses.

actually with adapted lenses there is full EXIF reporting to the camera
Uhhhh .... yes, seamless integrated .... just as good
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

Yeah..and at only $679 to $449 for a decent adapter...and slower AF than native lenses designed by the camera's manufacturer...sure "just as good". The cannard continues...you seldom back up your points, just keep repeating half-truths. Just as deceptive as always...
I'd love to see the Sears 70-210mm f/3.8~4.5 1975 lens versus a modern Olympus zoom.
.

actually the adapter is $19

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Derrel]

actually with adapted lenses there is full EXIF reporting to the camera
Uhhhh .... yes, seamless integrated .... just as good
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

An outright lie? Or are you just misinformed, or do you like spreading misinformation,constantly?

Here's a popular company's $69 adapter: FotodioX M42 Screw-Mount Lens to MFT VSLX-M42-MFT-MACRO B&H

"Please note that this is a manual adapter, and so any electronic communication between the lens and the camera is disrupted. Any lens without a manual aperture control ring will stop down to its smallest f-stop by default. Manual exposure and metering are still possible with your camera's aperture priority mode."

SOLUTION: BUY a real macro lens from your camera maker's lens lineup!!!
**********

Here's a nice $411 adapter....Canon EF to Sony FZ mount mirrorless...
MTF Services Ltd Canon EF to Sony FZ Lens Mount Adapter
"The nickel-plated brass mounting surface mates with your Canon EF lenses. The replacement mount is mechanical only and does not contain any optics or electronics, which means you will need to use manual focus/iris lenses.For manual focus lenses, lenses with electronic iris must be set before mounting."

Wow...what a PITA!!! And there's ZERO electronics...and what Canon EF lenses have a mechanical iris??? I kn ow of none!
********

And on and on and on...ZERO connection with the camera's subsystems

 

[Derrel]

Any Hyundai is every bit as high-performance as any Ferrari. Ask beagle--he will confirm that assertion. Lol!

 

[beagle100]

actually with adapted lenses there is full EXIF reporting to the camera
Uhhhh .... yes, seamless integrated .... just as good
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

An outright lie? Or are you just misinformed, or do you like spreading misinformation,constantly?
your Canon EF lenses. The replacement mount is mechanical only and does not contain any optics or electronics, which means you will need to use manual focus/iris lenses.For manual focus lenses, lenses with electronic iris must be set before mounting."
ms

no lie
my adapter was $19 .... full AF, aperture, etc
fantastic !

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[BrentC]

yeah...Metabones speed adapters....

Metabones Ultra 0.71x Adapter

A mere $649 to adapt Canon EF lenses to m4/3 cameras.

This adapter for Nikon G-series lenses is a mere $479.
Metabones Speed Booster XL 0.64x Adapter MB_SPNFG-M43-BM2 B&H


I think the majority of newbies will not pay $649, or even $449, to adapt old, non-native lenses to their tiny-sensored cameras. Who wants to drop $649 to adapt a $40 Canon 50/1.8 "iffy fifty" to a nice m4/3 body? Would it be cost-effective to graft a $50 Nikon 35-70mm f/3.3~4.5 zoom lens by buying a $449 adapter? Or is it smarter to buy a superb system-native lens from Olympus?


Please note that I wrote, "There's no autofocusing avaiable in most adapted lens scenarios." Not in all scenarios, but in 99% of scenarios...most people have a $15-$40 adapter that provides nothing advantageous, just the ability to use non-native lenses, with all the drawbacks that entails. Of course, if they have $679 plus shipping, or $449 plus shipping, they could get some decent Canon AF or Nikon AF glass, and have it autofocus on their "selected micro four-thirds cameras", to use Adorama's words!

I think the majority of newbies will not pay $640, or even $449, to adapt old, non-native lenses to their tiny-sensored cameras. People who constantly sing the praises of using non-native,or legacy lenses, on mirrorless cameras are propagating a cannard when they try to spin it and make it sound as if there are NO drawbacks to using outdated lenses on new, AF cameras. EXPERTS can work around limitations, but seriously, modern, AF lenses SUCK when a human is trying to adjust them for focus...the throws are so hair-trigger on many new-era AF lenses that manually setting the correct focus point can be very challenging for people who are less than experts.

There's zero doubt in my mind that system-native, modern, autofocusing lenses are _the absolute best_ performers for the majority of use scenarios. Take a Canon EF lens and try to manually focus it indoors in low light at a gymnastics meet or basketball game performance of your high school daughter or son...you'd be lucky to get a 50% focus hit rate on shots if you're manually focusing it at 15 to 75 feet...at those ranges, most AF lenses focus so,so,soooo poorly by hand-and-eye that it's not even funny. They were built for a computer to drive and focus...not a human eye and brain.

People who want to emphasize "possibilities" as a way to entice beginners and intermediates into thinking that their mirrorless body can "leverage" the d-slr lenses Canon and Nikon have been making for 30 years are doing a huge disservice to people. Tell them the truth: if you want a lens that shoots and focuses perfectly,under tough conditions--then you want a SYSTEM-NATIVE Autofocusing lens, one designed and built for 100% compatibility and high-level functionality for your camera's mount. Not some 50,40,or 30- or even 10-year-old lens that's been grafted onto your camera. If you are happy with 40 or 50% rejected shots due to missed focus, then by all means...feel free to adapt legacy lenses,and enjoy them for what they are, and how they work...just don't be too surprised when you take the camera out and blow shot after shot after shot under marginal to tough conditions.

FOCUSING dead-on has never been more critical than it is today. Missing focus by even a foot at under 30 feet can blow a shot. Missing focus by three inches at 10 feet can easily blow a portrait. Experts can handle limitations in gear: beginners and intermediate level shooters benefit hugely from good equipment that functions at the current, high level of modern AF lenses on their _own_ system's body lineup. Olympus and Sony and Fuji have superb lenses....BUY them, use them, get top-tier performance from them.

These adapters are not for the newbies who bought M43 as their first system. You are correct that it's best to buy native lenses, especially when it comes to Olympus lenses. These are for the people who have moved from dslr to m43 and have a bunch of nice lenses from their previous system they could use for $400-$700. You are not going to buy one for a one off lens, unless you need a very specific lens that your system doesn't have. My cousin needed a specific Canon lens for his video work and for him it was worth it to get the metabones. The extra stop of light helped a lot as well.

 

[Derrel]

>SNIP>>>You are correct that it's best to buy native lenses, especially when it comes to Olympus lenses. These are for the people who have moved from dslr to m43 and have a bunch of nice lenses from their previous system they could use for $400-$700. You are not going to buy one for a one off lens, unless you need a very specific lens that your system doesn't have. My cousin needed a specific Canon lens for his video work and for him it was worth it to get the metabones. The extra stop of light helped a lot as well.

I'd like to point out that, for the umpteenth time, beagle keeps recommending to a newbie, that mirrorless cameras "can use all the d-slr lenses". And glossing over issues, and outright mis-stating BASIC facts. And we have others here, apparently not having read the OP, and emphasizing that a few high-end adapters that cost two to three times the OP's lens budget can work-around being not-native lenses.

Please note the Original Poster's post:

Hey people,
I'm new to the forum and I have a question.
I travel a lot, and I want a good camera. Not even sure what the perfect type of camera would be, but I'd like a dslr. I'm looking for a camera good for both video and photography. The only limitation would be the price, as I'm looking for a max budget of around £1000. In that budget I would get a camera, couple batteries, sd card, tripod, a good all round lens, or two different types of lenses if I'd get a dslr. Not sure if I missed anything there, but I'd like to get all the important equipment for around £1000. Any recommendations?
Many thanks in advance,
Djordje"
*****************

Again...the OP is not an experienced shooter, and we have people who are, apparently, not really addressing the OP's post,or his needs, nor his state of experience. But are instead, viewing things from the POV of very experienced shooters...or mirrorless fanatics who seem to want to deny the most-basic issues like poor focusing, no AF, no EXIF, etc.etc..

We're not talking about somebody's cousin...we're not addressing a very seasoned, middle-aged British shooter who owns 150 lenses and multiple camera systems...we're not addressing the £1000 budget the OP has...

The OP even stated, "Not even sure what the perfect type of camera would be, but I'd like a dslr."

Let's try to keep in mind the Original Poster, and his budget, his wants, and the facts. I give up.