camera dilemma!

[salty]

right then.......

after my succesfull (although a right pain at times) scope dilemma thread, i now want a decent DSLR, and you lot can help me out again.

im really enjoying the digiscoping, but im after a DSLR to get those quality shots and not to mention flight shots etc.

i wont be sacking my digiscoping set-up, so dont think im tired of that allready!

cameras i have been looking at include:

konica minolta 7D - the one with built in IS, very nice indeed 6.1 MP.

nikon D70 6.1 MP, also the new D50 6.1MP, is it worth getting the cheaper but similar performance D50 over it's bigger brother????

canon EOS 20D 8.2MP, i have seen some breathtaking shots with this camera, but it is almost TWICE the price of the D50, is it worth it?

canon EOS 350D 8.0MP, an exellent right up, but not very nice to hold, can it perform like the pricey 20D?

anyone own/live with these cameras, help me out here, thanks.

again, i want to hear the plus points and the poor points of all these DSLR's, thanks.

[greypoint]

Owning both D70 and D50 I would say - unless the extra features of the D70s are essential then go for the D50 and have more to spend on lenses. Handling is almost identical [the 70 has a few extra controls which in theory make it quicker to change things but with practice I don't notice much difference]. The D50 does seem to have a bit of an edge in image quality especially at higher ISOs which is useful in low light. I had a Canon 10D and was thinking of an upgrade to the 20D earlier this year but the cost was a bit steep [I did'nt have a load of expensive Canon glass] so I took advice from a pro photographer who uses Nikon but had been using a 20D for a while to see if he thought the extra money was worth spending. That advice together with reading reviews/looking at images etc. led me to swapping my 10D for a D70 and it's something I don't regret at all. The truth is that just about all the currently available DSLRs are OK - some have advantages over others in handling or in certain features for shooting particular things. One thing to remmber is that people who have invested in a 20D have often also invested a good deal in expensive Canon L lenses so to some degree that can be the difference you see in image quality - it could mean spending a lot of money! My own preference for the D70/50 is simply the ease of handling, the possibility of getting good sharp out of camera pictures with an average lens like my 135-400 Sigma [and VERY sharp out of camera pictures with my 80-200 f2.8 Nikkor], the ability to take long sequences of in flight shots without the camera having to play catch up [the curse of the 10D even in JPEG] etc.etc.
One day I might really get to grips with 'processing' and change my snaps into proper 'photographs' but for the moment i'm happy with my Nikons. Others will now come along and praise Canon - it's really just what suits the individual!

[postcardcv]

I hope this develops into as good a thread as your scope one did....

Personally I'm a Canon user and have the 350D, the image quality is excellent, basically as good as the 20D. In the hand feel was a concern of mine, but within the week I was totally used to the feel of it and very happy with it. I still found it a bit small, but the addition of the battery grip has helped, even with this it's a deal cheaper than the 20D.

I'm sure Canon users will recommend the Canons, and Nikon users the Nikons... I don't think you'll go far wrong with either. Personally I would not go for the Minolta - I think it's probably the worst value of the five options and there are lens issues. Companies like Sigma do not make all of there lenses in Minolta fit (though all are available for Canon and Nikon), so you'll have less lens choice and may have to pay more to buy 'official' rather than third party lenses.

[pete schofield]

Hi Salty I am a Canon 20D user but, I am not going to recommend any of the camera's on your shortlist.

I would in your shoes start of with the size and type of lens you will be ultimately hoping to use and then work backwards.

For instance if you are looking at using one of the Canon L lenses then to do it justice I think you need to lean towards the 20D. If you are thinking the Sigma route then perhaps the 350 would suffice. Also bear in mind there is no substitute for reach, a 500/600 lens will get you shots where a 300/400 will struggle.

Another thing to think about is converters, will they work with the lenses you have in mind Autofocus etc.

Hope this is of help

Pete

[markho]

I have only been using my D50 since yesterday , but so far I can't fault it. It's very easy to use and seems to give clear images, even with the 135 -400 lens which some people said needed a tripod. I shot these photos yesterday and today. My main reason for buying was similar to you, I have been using the Opticron /kyocera kit on my ES 80 GA ED scope and had some good results but made my mind up to get a DSLR after missing so many photo opportunities on Holiday. I could of had in flight pictures of both Eagles not to mention very mobile Crested Tits in Scotland .However like you I can still see myself using the digiscoping kit as it has greater magnification than this 135-400 lens.

[salty]

this is what im after folks, keep them coming in.

[youngbirder92]

I am a 350d owner myself, and would probably reccomend that. I think the D70 and D50 are both overpriced, the 350d cost about the same and has a few extra features, and overall better image quality. Now the reason i would not say go for the 20d is that it is BETTER but not 500 USD better than the 350d. If feel is a concern, you can buy the BG-E3 Battery Grip for the 350d and use the extra few hundred Euro's you save from the 20d to go towards a nice piece of glass, such as the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L, which is VERY reasonably priced and gives extraordinarily sharp images, it can also be used handheld without a tripod fairly easily, i am hoping to buy this lens myself within the upcoming months. I hope this helps

[jiminlondon99]

I agree with Michael, I opted for the 350D and used the cash saved to help towards the cost of the lenses, you will no doubt find you need/want several. I have recently bought the 400 5.6 prime and am very happy with the results. I would advise anyone to start with 350 and a 400mm if at all possible, you can always upgrade to a 20d or the next generation model and keep the 350 as a spare body. Whatever camera you buy Canon or Nikon, it will be considered dated far quicker than the lens that will give years of good service.

good luck
Jim

[Keith Reeder]

Hmmm... with all due respect to Michael, I'd say that any argument based on the "overall better image quality" of one camera over another is a very thin one - and probably impossible to prove, as it ignores the lens, the photographer, the tripod (or not) and a million other variables.

Plus it's my understanding that the D70 has more, rather than less, "bells and whistles" than the 350D.

Salty, get yourself into the gallery and look at as many images as you can stomach from each of your shortlist cameras, and assess from there which camera/lens seems to give you the best results of the kind you're looking to get.

Otherwise, as Postcardcv you're just going to get Nikon users recommending Nikon, Canon users suggesting Canon and so on.

What's your budget including lens(es)? You can get Markho's Nikon plus his lens for the price of the Canon 400mm prime recommended above..!

[greypoint]

Without getting into the which is best argument in the UK you can get a D50 for just over 400.00 - overpriced??

[Keith Reeder]

My point exactly, GP - £400 for the camera (actually £396 - though admittedly that's Pixmania), £300 for the lens.

The Canon 400mm prime lens mentioned above (brilliant though it surely is) costs £874 from WE (more elsewhere)...

It's an important point.

[postcardcv]

What's your budget including lens(es)? You can get Markho's Nikon plus his lens for the price of the Canon 400mm prime recommended above..!

This is true - however the image quality of teh Canon 400mm is far superior to the Sigma 135-400.

But it is important when working out which to go for to account for everything when you budge - camera, lenses, memory cards, extra battery...

[salty]

yep, know all about how well priced the d50 is. and it is comfortable to use.

not sure about what lens to get though, id prefer a 100-400 or possibly a 500 at a push!

[mjmw]

Hi Salty

A couple of thoughts/questions, having recently finished a similar decision process…
Have you used SLR kit before?
How much can you afford?

The answer to the first question may answer which body to choose – if you have used a particular brand of SLR before, then it may pay to stick with what you know. If you haven’t, then I think the best advice is to go and play with your short list in a shop!

The second question is all about the lens(es) you stick on the front. This may/should be the biggest cost of the set-up – bodies will be out-dated faster than good glass (therefore the desire or need to upgrade increases). For most general bird photography you are going to need at least 400mm…and then you will always want more…especially if you are used to digiscoping. The more you spend, the sharper and faster the lens, and therefore you have increased chance of better photographs (or that is the theory).

There was a similar thread recently with lots of useful stuff, in case you haven’t seen it:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=42764

I didn’t even consider anything other than Canon because I have used Canon EOS in the past. I settled on the 20d and a 400mm f5.6.

Cheers Mark.

[Karl J]

Wotcha salty, a while back there were some flight pics posted by helenol of some kites

no idea what the kit was but i seem to remember it was dslr and the pics were brillo

[Karl J]

this thread here ..... http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=39507

[Coaldust]

Check out the pictures in the Gallery and you won't find very much if any difference in the quality of shots being taken by the cams you have listed and IMHO you can't go wrong with any of them.

I've just moved over from a Canon 300D to a Minolta 5D and have no regrets what so ever, every lens I put on the cam is stabilized without any price hike and the handling is great.

Canon, Minolta and Nikon all produce there own Premium lenses if you want to spend the big bucks and there are plenty of third party lenses available for them all so don't be influenced by lens availability if you want the Minolta.

[compa]

You have made a statement that I'm not sure is correct. You say you want a DSLR - well, maybe you do and maybe you don't.

I'm going to give a bunch of information here - most likely an overload but it is necessary if you are to really understand what you are getting into.

OK ... we are coming from the assumption that all of the use of this camera will be for bird photos. No need to complicate matters with talk about wide angle, macro or portrait lenses! Not intending to start a war but, as far as long telephoto lenses go, Canon's "L" series glass is the best made bar NONE. It is also the most expensive. A 500mm lens ($5500) will give you 16x magnification on a 20D or 350D. (500mm * 1.6 (sensor crop factor) / 50mm (1x))

There are various flavors of 400mm lenses costing from $1100 to $6500. They give you 12.8x. You can add a teleconverter to any of these lenses (perhaps at the loss of autofocus) for a 1.4x increase in focal lengths (and magnification).

Other companies also make glass for Canon (and Nikon) cameras. Some of it is very good. Some of it isn't. Canon "L" series glass holds about 85% of it's value on the used market. Glass from the other companies does not. Why? Take a guess!

The 20D and 350D may be capable of producing roughly equal quality photos under ideal conditions but when are conditions ideal? The 20D has much better low light response for autofocus and for exposure (up to 3200 ISO - and very clean at 800). The 20D is also much quicker from when you touch the shutter button to when the photo is taken. The 20D can also take photos at a machine gun fast rate (5 frames per second) and write them to the CF card almost as fast!

Bottom line - how much are you prepared to spend? There are some great non-slr digital cameras out there (10x optical) - check out all of the options before you commit to spending your childrens' inheritance on an SLR setup. It is an addiction, you will always need a longer or faster lens!

All that said - I have a 20D and an assortment of lenses. I came from (and still have) a digiscoping setup of a Swarovski ATS80HD and Nikon CP5000. A DSLR was right for me and it may be the right choice for you as well.

[birdeast]

D50 photos

The only thing limiting this camera is my skill and my post processing abilities :-O

There are a few more photos in my gallery - All D50

Scott

[Leo S]

...also somewhat limited by skill and ability at this time. Am only just getting to grips with proper RAW processing techniques!

[138mph]

Something else to look at is the lens (and to some extent camera) weight. You are unlikely to hand-hold any Canon lens above the 300 f/4 L though you can add a 1.4 converter without impacting quality much. Personally, I would like a 500mm Canon lens with a free porter to carry it and the tripod as the 300+1.4 just isn't sufficiently powerful for the casual birder like myself.
Hugh

[Leo S]

Something else to look at is the lens (and to some extent camera) weight. You are unlikely to hand-hold any Canon lens above the 300 f/4 L though you can add a 1.4 converter without impacting quality much. Personally, I would like a 500mm Canon lens with a free porter to carry it and the tripod as the 300+1.4 just isn't sufficiently powerful for the casual birder like myself.
Hugh

Hey 138,

I know how you feel...

I've been toying with the idea of getting the 800/5.6 Nikkor to use instead of the 600/4(w/1.4 x TC), which is an amazing lens, but no amount of magnification is too much when it comes to small birds !!! The trouble is, I'd probably need a new tripod(or even penta-pod) to support the thing!!! :D

That's another thing that should be taken into consideration when factoring the price of a long lens... not to mention a good head!

[greypoint]

Are there times you start something and wish you had'nt??!!
Ok -I've never used a 350D [just did'nt fancy it - too small especially gor big lenses - others disagree] or a 20D [cost at the time mainly but also based on a slight dissatisfaction with the 10D] but I have used Canons as well as my current Nikons. Unless there is something in the specs of either that's missing on some and present on one, and you must have it then any of the cameras mentioned plus the Minoltas will serve you well. Handle them all if you can because that's very important - For me the D70 handles best simply because the conrols are placed in such a way you can flick thngs like exposure compensation or ISO rating or aperture without moving the camera from your eye - and the size is just right and balances with a heavy lens. The size of the 20D would point to the same but you may find the 350D a bit small - thats why trying them is important if you're not sure.
Lenses - this is where people will spend a fortune for you and can make you feel inadequate if you don't have or don't want to spend that sort of money. Canon L series are top class - you're paying for the glass but also a premium for construction and 'pro' build. Prime lenses of whatever kind are usually superior - but when you're on a budget can take loads of your money and be very limiting. A prime 400mm will give fantastic quality but lacks the versatility of a zoom - how many times have I cursed having the limitation of a 135-400 when large birds fly close overhead and I can get their full body in! If you are into digiscoping for long distance then the main reason for getting a DSLR must be for flight shots and superior handling/portability - if your're spending a fortune on very heavy lenses that need a tripod then much of this is lost.
So you really need to do a bit of handling to see what feels right, what you could comfortably hand hold when you don't want the bother of a tripod or when it is'nt practical - and decide your initial budget!

[Keith Reeder]

Heh!

Well - so far - we've established conclusively that spending an absolute hill of money on kit will probably provide better results than you'd get from less expensive gear...

;)

Richie, another quick question (but don't forget to answer the other ones I asked, mind!) exactly what is your ambition here?

Do you want to be a hobbyist who really doesn't see himself going beyond the aspiration to post the odd "wow!" shot on BF, and/or maybe a site you've set up for yourself?

Or are you aiming to be printing out your work to A3 size for sale in all the best birding emporia or getting your masterpieces published on the cover of Birdwatching?

(Yeah I know - we'd all want that really! ;))

In other words: if you're going to be happy with having websites like this and maybe a site of your own as your main - ahem! - "exposure", then don't feel too compelled to spend £1000 on a body and £3000 on a lens, because the less expensive stuff will still do a first class job...

And get stuck into the gallery!

;)

Oh, for what it's worth, I'm a D70 and handheld Sigma 135-400mm guy myself, a decision I made based on just two things: Greypoint's gallery, and the hugely positive review of the camera on Warehouse Express by Andy Rouse - "a Canon man through and through" - who heaped lavish praise on the camera.

For what I want to do, this is an ideal set up at my level of experience and ambition, and I get some pretty good stuff out of the setup.

Down the line I envisage my upgrade path (which is another point to bear in mind) being the Sigma 80-400mm OS lens and a 1.4x Tcon, which will give me more reach when I need it, image stabilisation, and noticeably better quality optics.

But for now, the attachment gives you an idea of what my camera/lens combo will do, without the need to remortgage. I'm still a beginner myself, and I want to get as good as I can get with this kit (and I am getting better, I think) before thinking about moving up...

[stanacko]

right then.......

after my succesfull (although a right pain at times) scope dilemma thread, i now want a decent DSLR, and you lot can help me out again.

im really enjoying the digiscoping, but im after a DSLR to get those quality shots and not to mention flight shots etc.

i wont be sacking my digiscoping set-up, so dont think im tired of that allready!

cameras i have been looking at include:

konica minolta 7D - the one with built in IS, very nice indeed 6.1 MP.

nikon D70 6.1 MP, also the new D50 6.1MP, is it worth getting the cheaper but similar performance D50 over it's bigger brother????

canon EOS 20D 8.2MP, i have seen some breathtaking shots with this camera, but it is almost TWICE the price of the D50, is it worth it?

canon EOS 350D 8.0MP, an exellent right up, but not very nice to hold, can it perform like the pricey 20D?

anyone own/live with these cameras, help me out here, thanks.

again, i want to hear the plus points and the poor points of all these DSLR's, thanks.

Hi Salty,
I was in the same situation as you are, so this is what I did. I went into the well known high street camera shop armed with a CF card and tried out some cameras they allowed me to go outside the shop to take some photos and I took the card home and decided on the Nikon D70 but this is were I slipped up I only used the kit lens so when I went out inthe field and took distant shots they nearly all came out blurred,I found out later it was me the old body could,nt hold the camera still and it was going to cost a lot of money to buy a stabalized lens so I cut my losses and sold it.Then a friend of mine got the Minolta 7D and I tried it and nearly every shot was a winner, so I went back to the high street shop and tried the 5D and was happy with the results I got with the KM 100-300 lens APO SO i ended up with the 5D and kit lens I then bought a used 100-300mm APO lens for around £135 and now it does,nt cost an arm & a leg on stabalized lens because the camera has anti-shake system and I am happy should have gone that route at first. Good luck in your search.
Regards Stan.

[postcardcv]

But for now, the attachment gives you an idea of what my camera/lens combo will do, without the need to remortgage.

Great photo Keith.

I agree that it's possible to get very decent shots with some of the less expensive lenses (I have had a 135-400 and a 170-500) and got some pleasing results with both. However since making the jump to a prime lens (Sigma 500 f4.5) I'm much happier, I take the same photo's but they come out much sharper.

The Canon 400 f5.6 is a great lens, this with a 350D would set you back about £1300 and will deliver excellent results. Another good option is to look at secondhand lenses, my secondhand Sigma worked out about half the new price, a real bargain. If you can afford to buy a better lens I'd say it's worth doing, it's definitely the way to spend your money. I'd buy the best lens you can, even if it means going for a cheaper body (the D50 or the 350D).

There are a couple of issues with the Minolta which would put me off one... the built in IS is all well and good, but I have heard that it is not always very effective on long lenses. Also lens availability is an issue, I know of people who have changed from Minolta to Canon/Nikon purely for this reason. Don't get me wrong I think that the Minolta is a great camera, I spent some time using one and really liked it.

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Posty (what can I call you? "Postcardcv" seems so formal! ;))

It's an OK pic - I'm under no illusions on that score - but for me it's fine at my stage in the game.

I don't deny for a second that better glass will mean better pictures (in fact for that pic, a tripod would likely have made for a better end result, except that I probably would have missed the opportunity altogether! ;)), everything else being equal.

Young Master Salt is right at the start of this though - he's only had his Canon A95 p&s for a month or two - so I'm trying to help him keep a sense of proportion and not feel he has to blow several grand first time out.

Got to admit, the 350D/400 f5.6 sounds pretty good, but I reckon that maybe a decent zoom would make a more versatile first long lens, with a good prime a possible upgrade option down the line.

I would certainly agree with the sentiment that if Salty sticks to Canon or Nikon he won't be too wide of the mark whatever he ends up with.

[138mph]

Got to admit, the 350D/400 f5.6 sounds pretty good, but I reckon that maybe a decent zoom would make a more versatile first long lens, with a good prime a possible upgrade option down the line.

I would make sure that you have a good tryout of any big zoom lens before buying, I switched from the Canon 100-400 to 300 f/4 L + 1.4x simply because it handles better. (I used to use a Sigma 135-400 on Minolta 700si but IMHO even that doesn't handle as well as my current setup)
Hugh

[postcardcv]

Hi Posty (what can I call you? "Postcardcv" seems so formal! ;))

Young Master Salt is right at the start of this though - he's only had his Canon A95 p&s for a month or two - so I'm trying to help him keep a sense of proportion and not feel he has to blow several grand first time out.

Got to admit, the 350D/400 f5.6 sounds pretty good, but I reckon that maybe a decent zoom would make a more versatile first long lens, with a good prime a possible upgrade option down the line.

Hi Keith

You're welcome to call me whatever you want... but really I'm Peter (just tend to use postcardcv online).

I know what you mean about a good zoom being more versatile, they are great and allow a one lens for all situations set up. Once you start with primes you'll end up with a bag full of lenses...

I also agree that it's not a good idea to spend a fortune on a dslr set up straight off, better to test the water and see how you get one with it. But I found that I wanted to upgrade my lens very quickly, and wish I'd just started with the prime (though I have been using standard slr's for a while first). I guess one of the best things Salty can do is meet up with some fellow BF'ers and try out there kit. Trying them 'in the field' is definitely the best way to get a feel for it and see which he prefers.

It is also very important to decide if the dslr route is the one to take, some people get on much better just digiscoping (much less weight to carry). Personally since I got my new prime lens I have found that I digiscope less and less, to the extent that I am now selling my digiscoping kit. I only changed to the Kyocera a few months back and am just not giving it the use (decided to sell it to fund my new macro lens). I wish I'd given it a bit more thought as I may well have realised how little I'd use it and saved myself a chunk of money.

So I guess I'm saying that while dslr and digiscoping can go hand in hand, they're not for everyone (I was happy digiscoping until I got the dslr). So think carefully before going for a dslr (esp. as you've just paid out for that nice digiscoping set up) - learn from the mistakes the rest of us have made.

[salty]

thanks folks.

i will probaly go with canon or nikon, but as of what body/lens combo, im still not sure.

as for pic quality, i want them to be good, but im not going to use the pics for anything too special, probaly get some good photos put into frames, but i will mainly be using the results for record shots.

whats your views on canons IS selection of lens, overpriced, or a godsend?

i have been surprised at the sigma lenses, and would need a 400 or 500 (zoom) for my birding, and i do like the price, but are they hard to use to there full advantage or will i just get shaky shots most of the time?

[DaveB]

I started a similar thread a very short while ago and narrowed my choices down dramatically (I didnt know too much on the wide variety of choices or the cost implications at all).

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=42764

I was also talking to a photographer at South Gare who was happily taking photos of the 100's of Goldcrest that dropped in the area on Sunday. He was using a 300 Sigma prime and was having to get to within 7 ft to get the bird in the frame (they are small birds and how they get across the north sea, ill never know). He did mention that he had a 500 prime attached earlier in the day when viewing a Pallas's Warbler (the bird was displaying in full view for quite a while, but the 500 was simply too powerful for that situation).

This prompted me to think about choosing a zoom. I have been thinking about the Canon 28-300 zoom, but I am seriously concerned about some of the comments on these threads. Apparently, zoom lenses aren't as sharp as the primes so I ask myself what do I want, Quality or Practicality?

You see, I want to get this right first time and my choice will probably be the Canon 20d with the Canon 300 F2.8 Prime. This will cost a bit more than what I was planning, but I would then be able to add the 1.4 and the x2 converter to my collection giving me the oppertunity to extend (or reduce0 the focal lentgh when need be.

The Canon 400 F5.6 sounds very good, but I dont think it will give me the flexibility that the Canon 20d / Canon 300 F2.8 Prime has to offer.

Still waiting and reading untill the cheque clears.

Dave B.

PS: Tested the 350 and the 20d on saturday. Thanks everyone, you were right about the feel of the two camera's and the 20d is definately the one for me (pity its not the same price though) :gn:

[compa]

Salty -

You are a very regular poster around here so you should be able to help everyone that is in your current situation. (and to help us giving advise to see where we may have erred in our thoughts)

After all of this is over and you have had a couple of months with whichever system you decide is appropriate, come back here and post to this same thread and tell us if you still think your decision was a good one ... and why or why not.

Thanks!

[postcardcv]

whats your views on canons IS selection of lens, overpriced, or a godsend?

i have been surprised at the sigma lenses, and would need a 400 or 500 (zoom) for my birding, and i do like the price, but are they hard to use to there full advantage or will i just get shaky shots most of the time?

Personally I'm not convinced that IS is the greatest advantage for bird photography (though I've not used any IS lenses), I guess it helps counter lens movement, but won't keep the bird still.

I have used Sigma lenses upto 500 handheld and got good results (in good light), in general though I use my big lens on a tripod, totally removes and issue of shake and is much cheaper than buying IS lenses.

[salty]

what about general birding then, would a 100-400 lens be good enough, and at what distances will it be at it's best? - regardless of what camera it's attached too.

[Chris Oates]

I'm a Nikon user but most of my lenses are Sigma.
I use a 170-500 handheld and on a Velbon carbon fibre tripod - the pair was about £425 from warehouseexpress. (refurb lens and bargain bin tripod)
For super close-ups of friendlier birds I use a Sigma 70-300 Super II APO in macro mode - it will focus to about 16 inches rather than the 16 feet of the 170-500.
I don't have any image stabilized lenses as I don't chase footballers around and IS doesn't work on a tripod.

[rezMole]

Hi salty.

I'd sugest you see which "feels" better. I wouldn't say that there is enough difference between say Canon and Nikon to worry about it. And, unless you have thousands to spend, you'll probably go for a sigma or tamron zoom to start with. Again, i doubt there's much difference quality wise.

Personally, i went with Nikon D70 cos it felt better in my hands than the Canon 300. I went with Tamron 28-300 and 200-500 because they are more compact than a similar sigma lenses. You've seen my gallery pictures. Not the greatest, but it's practice and more practice that makes good photos - not the gear. Hence - get what you are more comfortable with, get out and take some pictures!

IS isn't all it's cracked up to be - it won't freeze a moving bird - it'll help with camera shake at low shutter speeds, but you'll probably need pretty fast shutter speeds anyway!

Not tried the Nikon D50, but the differences between it and the D70 aren't that great. And you must be short of cash with all the money you've been spending these last few months!

PS You could always sell you're scope to fund the DSLR!!!

[Keith Reeder]

what about general birding then, would a 100-400 lens be good enough, and at what distances will it be at it's best? - regardless of what camera it's attached too.
Ooh, you b*gger! I've already answered this!

;)

You've seen my gallery Richie* (thanks for the positive feedback, incidentally!), and the pictures in it are all taken with the Sigma 135-400mm...

You'll need to be pretty close for frame-filling shots of course, but a 400mm lens will also do flight shots, "birds in their environment" pictures - everything really. Just pick your shots...

DaveB - how sharp is "sharp", mate?

It's fair to say that prime lenses are the Ferraris of the lens world, but most of us get everything we ever need out of our Fords, Peugeots, VWs, Toyotas and whatnot.

A good zoom is a good lens, and will give images as sharp as your eyes can cope with, in the right hands (with apologies for the confusing mixed metaphor...)


* Doh! Just noticed rezMole beat me to this!! ;)

[postcardcv]

what about general birding then, would a 100-400 lens be good enough, and at what distances will it be at it's best? - regardless of what camera it's attached too.

As others have said a 400 lens will do you fine for birds, just don't expect everything to fill the frame. I've used 300, 400 and 500 lenses for birds and have always found myself wanting a bit more reach. Whatever long lens you get, it will not give you as much magnification as you get digiscoping.

I think that a 400 or 500 lens is a sensible length to use, if you go larger the cost and weight seem to get very high very quickly. If reach becomes an issure ther is always the option to add a teleconvertor to give you a bit more.

One very good lens that has not been mentioned (at least I don't think it has) is the Sigma 50-500. It's about twice the price of the 135-400, but does seem to deliver a sharper image and has such a wide zoom range that it could be the only lens you need.

[IanF]

I'm still considering going down the DSLR route myself - I just haven't quite convinced myself yet that I want to spend that much money!

A DSLR+lens will never replace a scope for distance. I look on it as a replacement for my Panasonic FZ20 which has 420mm reach on it's own or 700mm with converter - roughly about the same as a 400mm x1.6 - well near enough - but with far superior results.

Equipment will likely be Canon 350D+battery grip+Canon 400mm f5,6.

I only serioulsy considered the Nikon D70s, Canon 20D and 350D after narrowing down all models based on reviews and lens options.

D70 - I liked the build quality and handling of the Nikon and the results it produces, but I think it is over priced for it's specification as compared to the 20D/350D and the lack of mirror lock whilst a minor point is limiting should I want to try digiscoping with it. The lens choice is more limited too. If I already had Nikon lenses then I wouldn't hesitate at buying it.

20D v 350D - No doubt about it the 20D is better built and better specified. Photo quality about the same. For me the 20D is a bit too big and bulky and the price difference too great to really justify the extra expense for what to me is very little extra. I can live with the build quality of the 350D and it's definitely a handier size with the added battery grip.

Lenses - The quality of the photos produced is for me what photography is all about. Prime lenses win hands down. Independent lenses particularly Sigma seem to produce the goods but they always seem to be a good bit bulkier/heavier than either Canon equivalents. I was considering the Canon 100-400 IS but really it's a bit too bulky for carrying around for use at the 100mm end and who needs IS at 100mm? Also the comparison photos/reviews put the prime lens streets ahead. As it is, I only ever use the FZ20 at max zoom when birding so a fixed 400mm will do just fine for that. A longer lens would give more reach but carting about 'monster' lenses takes a lot of the fun out of photography. I will likely buy a shorter zoom at some point but haven't decided on which one yet. Probably a 50 mm as well.

I'd love a fast 400mm lens but the prices are way beyond my pocket. The Canon 400mm f5,6 whilst not particularly fast does seem to capable of first rate quality images. There is some doubt as to whether it can take a 1.4x converter but at least one BF member is doing just that and others elsewhere are managing it and maintaining autofoucs (Kenco 1.4x rather than the pro version?) - which would be a big bonus.

At the end of the day I don't think it really matters which body you choose - whether it be Nikon or Canon - they're both great bodies. I think the deciding factor should be what you want the camera for. If mainly for bird photos then the Canon clinches it for me with a better range/quality of lenses.

[stuartlawrie]

Hi Richie,
I have to agree with Postie's (sorry Peter's) point about the Sigma 50-500, being under rated, I have used both this and the Canon 100-400 IS lenses, to be honest I don't see that much of a difference between the two, as others have pointed out, IS isn't that much use for bird photgraphy. The only slight advantage the Canon has is it is very slightly lighter, but a big strapping lad like you Richie shouldn't have a problem with that! Whereas the extra 100mm reach is much more useful, I also prefer the twist zoom of the Sigma! Indeed the difference in price between these two lenses could fund the difference between the 350d and the 20d, I can't really comment having never used a 350d, but I must admit to not liking the feel of the 300d. I bought a 20D at the turn of the year as a second body to my 10D, the difference between these two models is so great, I would imagine it is even greater between the 350d and 20d. The 20d autofocus locks on so much faster, it also starts faster, as soon as funds allow I will be flogging my 10d to buy another 20d, thats how impressed I am, even considering selling the 100-400 to invest in a big prime, note that in preference to letting the Sigma go!

[compa]

I've got to chime in again.

As an owner of the Canon 100-400mm lens I have to say it is NOT a good choice for a birding lens. Sure you can use it, sure it will take some nice photos - even great ones. But you would do better with a 400 f/5.6 prime or a 300mm f/4 (+teleconverter) prime. All three are around the same price. 98% of the birding photos I've taken using the 100-400mm have been at 400mm and, at times, 400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter added. For birding you don't need zoom - you want a longer lens!!!!!

Consider your photography in the past ... how many shots (even digiscoping) were useless because the bird was too close vs how many were useless because the bird was too far away?

The Canon 100-400mm lens is great for sporting events - good light - rapidly changing subject distances and compositions. It is not a very good solution for birding. No zoom type lens is going to be in the top 10 (quality wise) of birding lenses. On a zoom lens, less than the full focal length is not used 98% of the time unless you hang around the pond taking pictures of domestic ducks or if you have absolutely amazing stalking abilities.

And please, if anyone doesn't agree with this 98% figure, I challenge you to go back through your photos and examine the EXIF tags to see just what focal lengths you used. Count them up. You may surprise yourself.

Of necessity, in the the design of lenses, compromises have to be made in the design of zoom type lens. They need more light (aren't as fast) - they aren't quite the same high optical quality - they weigh more - for equal quality, they cost more.

Also, there are other ways of comparing lenses that don't require looking at those "one in a thousand" shots that get posted to the internet to determine if a lens (or camera) is good. Canon and most other lens manufacturers produce what are called MTF charts for each lens they make. These charts predict the lens' performance in the real world. They chart resolution and contrast of the lens. Yes, you will need to spend a few hours learning just what they mean and about how to read them but how much is your time worth per hour compared to a mistake in purchasing a $1000+ lens? And no, they are not the only things you need to consider. Budget - weight - physical size - focal length: all need to be considered as well as lens quality.

Now if you are going to be using this setup for things other than birding ... just ignore most everything I (and everyone else here) has said. Get yourself a 350D body, a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 zoom for about $180! You can add on a non-Canon 2x teleconverter for another $140 and get up to 600mm and have a decent walk-about lens to boot! Then, after you have some experience under your belt, consider a real investment.

[Adey Baker]

Why don't you all just go out and get a 20D and 400mm F5.6L lens - you know you want to!

It's light enough to carry all day and big enough not to need an extra battery grip to hold it. The battery lasts ages and the lens is high enough quality to put a converter behind it without too much loss of definition.

The focus is fast and precise and flight-photography is very possible with the right subject.

The only downside is the slightly long closest-focus of 3.5m which is not up to smaller butterflies, damselflies etc., in the same way that my Sigma is - but that's not made any more, so I can't recommend that!

[Tannin]

I'm not convinced that the evidence all stacks up in favour of the 400mm f/5.6 prime as against the 100-400 IS. Sure, you look at test shots and, just barely, the prime is sharper. Yup, most bird pictures taken with the 100-400 are at 400mm. But when you take careful test shots to compare, in the very nature of things, you get the two shots exactly the same, lined up on the tripod just so. And this is not what you do in real life!

In real life, you are probably hand holding a 400mm lens (zoom or prime) and, for me, that means that even if I never use the 100-400 at anything else except 400mm I can expect better day-in, day-out shots from the zoom because of the image stabilisation. If the Canon 400mm f/5.6 prime was an IS lens, then I'd probably have bought one. If I planned to use a tripod most of the time, ditto. But for hand-held, the IS was the deciding factor.

(OK, I'd rather the 500mm f/4 IS prime than either of the 400s. Or the 600. But I just destroyed the budget already, and I have the digiscoping rig for longer range work. Maybe next year.)

[postcardcv]

I bought a 20D at the turn of the year as a second body to my 10D, the difference between these two models is so great, I would imagine it is even greater between the 350d and 20d. The 20d autofocus locks on so much faster, it also starts faster.

The 350D has similar start up/wake up time to the 20D, I think it's listed as 0.2 seconds, though has a slower shooting rate (3fps vs 5fps).

[Keith Reeder]

I'm with Tannin 100% here.

I'm very enthusiastic about IS/OS for bird photography too - though this is specifically in the context of hand-held walkabout shooting.

I'm in no doubt that for my preferred approach the biggest improvement I can expect that I can currently just about afford is image stabilistation: living on the windy north east coast, unwanted camera movement is the biggest issue I have to contend with, and IS will help to address that, I'm certain.

[salty]

this is brilliant folks, thanks.

i did hold a 350D and sigma lens, a 500mm zoom at the weekend, and it was okay weight wise, just the feel of the 350 is still awkward for me. the D50 is a dream to hold, but is the lack of pixels going to effect me? - just i was almost set on buying a 350D.

the 20D is superb too, but almost double the price of the 350, so that is going to effect my lens choice.

i still have plenty of time to choose, i will hold out to nearer christmas before i buy.

i was going to buy the camera at the weekend, but bought a new PC instead, because i simply couldnt make my mind up. so keep your thoughts coming in please.

[Yelvertoft]

i did hold a 350D and sigma lens, a 500mm zoom at the weekend, and it was okay weight wise, just the feel of the 350 is still awkward for me. the D50 is a dream to hold, but is the lack of pixels going to effect me?


The feel of a camera, or any other equipment for that matter, is important. If you don't like the feel of it, you aren't going to get the most out of using it, irrespective of how many pixels its got or its other technical features.

Being able to quickly operate the controls without having to think about it or study the manual to figure things out will get you the shot. If you enjoy the ergonomics, you will be far more encouraged to use it. I've had a camera in the past that was technically very capable but I got fed up with fighting the ergonomics. It stayed at home unused a lot until it got stolen on holiday - this was probably the best thing that could have happened to it.

Duncan.

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Salty,

The D50's pixel count is plenty - you've seen plenty of pictures taken by the D70, and that's the same.

And Duncan's really making a good point about the ergonomics - I can use my D70 with my eyes shut (so to speak!) because things are so well thought out.

[postcardcv]

i did hold a 350D and sigma lens, a 500mm zoom at the weekend, and it was okay weight wise, just the feel of the 350 is still awkward for me. the D50 is a dream to hold, but is the lack of pixels going to effect me? - just i was almost set on buying a 350D.

I'm fairly sure that you will not really notice the difference in pixels if you get a 8mp or a 6mp. I changed from a 300D (6.2mp) to a 350D (8.1mp) earlier in the year and would say that the increased pixel count has not noticed.

If you are thinking about the 350D I'd recommend trying it with the battery grip, it really does change the camera, makes it much more comfortable in the hand. Like Keith I am now so used to using my camera that I don't look at it when changing settings, I can do so while looking through it. I really do think that you'd be happy with either Canon or either Nikon, so go with the one that feels best to you.

One thing that swayed me to Canon was that a birding friend uses Canon kit, so now we can use each others lenses. So if you go out with other slr users it's something to consider.

[salty]

good points postie and keith!

my good friend rayl on this forum has the D50, and his is well balanced and is comfortable to shoot.

around £80 cheaper than the 350, so that could leave me more for a lens i suppose? - has anyone compared these 2 side by side propaly?

and what lens, zoom or fixed would/do you use?

[Nigel G]

Hi Salty

From my reading of this thread so far your first decison should be "what am I trying to achieve"? That (and your budget) should determine your lens and finally you can see what you've got left to buy the body which feels most comfortable.

OK. If you want/need a prime lens then the Canon 400 F5.6 seems to be the only one under £1K so unless your feeling loaded that narrows the seach somewhat and it becomes a choice of 350D or 20D.

If a zoom is OK and price is a concern then the Sigma 50-500 seems to give the most flexibility and could go on the D50 body which you appear to favour.

Hope this simplistic distillation from someone who has never used any of them is a help

[christineredgate]

Salty ,check out for used lenses.I have just bought a used 300F/4 LIS USM for £300,I did part ex a lens I was not using,but it is a good bargain.It auto focuses with the 1x4 Ext,which the 100-400 does not do.Do think of the weight you will be carrying ,Salty.It is holding the equipment for say 5/10 mins whils't you wait for the bird to pause whils't preening and raise it's head as it were.I am now finding the 20D plus 100-400 can cause probs at times,so I am considering trying the 350 as it is 200g lighter,then I will sell the 20d.Weight is okay if you are walking and carrying,but can be problematic whil'st standing and holding,or as in my case sitting.But do check out for used lenses,there are bargains to be found.My 100-400 was a used model.

[rayl]

I'm fairly sure that you will not really notice the difference in pixels if you get a 8mp or a 6mp. I changed from a 300D (6.2mp) to a 350D (8.1mp) earlier in the year and would say that the increased pixel count has not noticed.

If you are thinking about the 350D I'd recommend trying it with the battery grip, it really does change the camera, makes it much more comfortable in the hand. Like Keith I am now so used to using my camera that I don't look at it when changing settings, I can do so while looking through it. I really do think that you'd be happy with either Canon or either Nikon, so go with the one that feels best to you.

One thing that swayed me to Canon was that a birding friend uses Canon kit, so now we can use each others lenses. So if you go out with other slr users it's something to consider.

Richie this is without doubt the number one crucial deciding factor in your purchase decision. When you need to borrow my 28-100 lens to take those family pics. of your better half and family, you can repay the favour with your 500 prime when I shoot off to Mull for a couple of months next summer.

Ray

[salty]

[QUOTE=postcardcv]When you need to borrow my 28-100 lens to take those family pics. of your better half and family, you can repay the favour with your 500 prime when I shoot off to Mull for a couple of months next summer.
Ray


yep, good point mate. ;)

what kind of prices are we talking about with a prime 500mm lens?

any recomendations folks?

also would i get good shots with a 500mm if i used a bean bag rest on a wall or similar?

[rayl]

Only 5 grand mate (no smilie required)

Ray

[salty]

Only 5 grand mate (no smilie required)

Ray

so, will i get one of each size then?



:h?:




:eek!:

[rayl]

I think your value for money choice is between Sigma’s 135-400 and 170 to 500 there’s about £140 difference in price, so with the D50 body that’s £730 or £870, lots of interest free options available.
Another point with the zoom that I don’t think has been mentioned is, with birds in flight you can pick up the bird easier with the wide end of the zoom and then zoom in.

Ray

[postcardcv]

my good friend rayl on this forum has the D50, and his is well balanced and is comfortable to shoot.

around £80 cheaper than the 350, so that could leave me more for a lens i suppose? - has anyone compared these 2 side by side propaly?

and what lens, zoom or fixed would/do you use?

Sounds to me like the D50 could well be the camera for you - it is amazingly good value and clearly you already know that you are happy with the way it handles.

As for what lens...

When I got my 300D earlier this year I borrowed a friend Sigma 135-400 for a week, was impressed with it, but ended up buying the 170-500 instead for that bit more reach. It's a great lens, but was not much use for scenics and shots of the family, so I added a Sigma 28-300 and a general 'walkabout' lens and a Sigma 28-135 for portraits (also has reasonable macro on it).

Then I made the mistake of trying the Sigma 500 f4.5 prime, compared it side by side with the 170-500 and fell in love with it. So I went for that one (secondhand) and sold my 170-500 zoom. Then last week I added a Sigma 105 macro, for shots of insects and flowers....

So now I'm at four lenses (plus the kit lens) and am very happy with the set up, I don't want to change any of them. The only things I would like to add is a 1.4tc and a really nice wide angle lens...

what kind of prices are we talking about with a prime 500mm lens?

If you go for the Sigma 500 f4.5 they're about £2000 new, but you could probably get one secondhand for just over half that. This is the lens that I use and I am very happy with it - only down side is teht weight, but if I can manage it I'm sure you could. Have a look at this website http://www.marcread-pix.com/ - Marc uses the Sigma 500f4.5 on a Nikon D70.

[Keith Reeder]

And Salty,

decide whether you're happy taking the tripod approach (bearing in mind that you might end up having to lug two tripods around, one for camera, one for scope. It'd be a royal pain in the buttocks to have one tripod doing "double duty"), or whether you want a camera/lens combo you can use handheld.

If it's the latter (and as you know, it is for me), then a big prime is really not the lens for you - the "bean bag/leaning against the wall" approach would not do it justice, and you'd be much, much better off with one of the slightly shorter zooms mentioned already.

In fact - it sound to me like you do want to be able to handhold, in which case something like a D70s/350D + Sigma 80-400mm OS (image stabilised) + 1.4x Tcon would be ideal: and you'd be getting an efective 840mm (or thereabouts - dunno what the 350D crop factor is) of reach from that lot, albeit with the likelihood that you'd have to manually focus with the tcon in place...

Put it this way: if I can find one of those Sigmas in Manchester over the next day or two, I'm buying it...

[SeanKP]

If it's the latter (and as you know, it is for me), then a big prime is really not the lens for you - the "bean bag/leaning against the wall" approach would not do it justice, and you'd be much, much better off with one of the slightly shorter zooms mentioned already.

I've got the same Sigma 500mm as Peter and although I lug around a tripod with me most of the time, the majority of my shots do tend to be taken either hand-held or using anything available for make-do support. I just don't find myself very often in the situation where I've got the time to set the camera up on the tripod and I hate carrying the camera already attached.

I do think I've got some reasonable shots this way and I'm not a big, strong lad by any means. Some shots in my gallery (http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/23697) that are hand-held (no support whatsoever) are the sparrow (http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/65676/sort/1/cat/500/page/1), the wheatear (http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/61150/sort/1/cat/500/page/3), the blue jay (http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/65592/sort/1/cat/500/page/2) and the kestrel (http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/60627/sort/1/cat/500/page/3). I know I'm sacrificing a degree of sharpness by hand-holding but suspect I wouldn't get any better results hand-holding a lighter lens like the 170-500mm and I like the fact that when I do get the chance to put it on a tripod, the results are, to my eyes at least, pin sharp.

Sean

[postcardcv]

decide whether you're happy taking the tripod approach (bearing in mind that you might end up having to lug two tripods around, one for camera, one for scope. It'd be a royal pain in the buttocks to have one tripod doing "double duty"), or whether you want a camera/lens combo you can use handheld.

If it's the latter (and as you know, it is for me), then a big prime is really not the lens for you - the "bean bag/leaning against the wall" approach would not do it justice, and you'd be much, much better off with one of the slightly shorter zooms mentioned already.

While I agree that it's important to decide how you're going to use the lens before you decide which ones right for you... I don't find that using the same tripod for the scope and the camera is a problem. It might mean that I miss some shots because I'm not set up (as the scopes on the tripod), but I'm a birder first so woudl rather have teh scope ready than the camera.

As Sean has mentioned he uses the Sigma 500 prime handheld and gets some excellent results (makes sure you have a look at his gallery). I've tried the lens handheld, on a beanbag, with a monopod and with a tripod. My best results are with a tripod, but with a monopod or beanbag I get much better results than my 170-500 zoom gave.

That said when you look at some of the shots taken with the 170-500 and the 135-400 lenses (take a look at Keith's gallery, esp the recent goldcrest shots), you realise that less-expensive lenses can still deliver great results in the right hands.

[SeanKP]

That said when you look at some of the shots taken with the 170-500 and the 135-400 lenses (take a look at Keith's gallery, esp the recent goldcrest shots), you realise that less-expensive lenses can still deliver great results in the right hands.
Keith's recent Goldcrest shots are a great advertisement for the 135-400mm lens. The detail is stunning.

Sean

[salty]

the 170-500mm sigma was looked at on sunday, i was surprised at how light it was, i thought it was going to be on the heavy side.

has anyone used this with the D50 or 350D? - let me know please.

to get this combo, and for it to cost around the 1k mark would be great.

[rezMole]

Beanbags are great. I find them MORE stable than using a tripod - the actually seem to "deaden" the mirror vibration!

Should have let you play with my D70 Tamron 200-500mm combo when we met. If you get the chance, have a go.

I only have two lenses now - as your mate bought my others. Two lenses are quite enough to lug around, even though they are pretty compact. Bought the Tamron from WE on there buy now pay in nine months interest free option. If you go down this route, just remember to pay in time, to avoid the extortionate interest charge!

Also, i share the tripod if i need to with the Leica. It takes all of 5 seconds to change over - provided you have a quick release plate attached to scope and lens. Having said that, i do most of my shots hand held nowadays, without any problems - unless the light is particularly bad.

Canon or Nikon? Well, as i said before - get the one that "feels" better. A friend has a Canon, and the pics are great. I have a Nikon and the pics are great. You'll find no difference in quality.

Good luck mate.

[Saphire]

Salty

Since I bought the 170-500 in May, I have only had it off the camera a couple of times. Three weeks ago I bought the 350d and again I have the 170-500 on all the time. check my gallery all of the photo's were taken hand held.

[salty]

Salty

Since I bought the 170-500 in May, I have only had it off the camera a couple of times. Three weeks ago I bought the 350d and again I have the 170-500 on all the time. check my gallery all of the photo's were taken hand held.

great work.

looks like it can be an exellent performer, thanks.

[christineredgate]

On thinking about cams and lenses today,and Salty's query,could there not be a section ,say,in the Gallery,where members can list the equipment they use,then if anyone is looking to change/buy new cams and lenses they can easily check images which have been taken with the products in which they are interested.I know people do mention on the Gallery,which cam/lens etc they have used,but it is very difficult to remember who uses what and where to locate their images.there could perhaps be a separate link to the images,and then it would be easy for one to go and have a look.
Anyone think this idea could be viable,perhaps one of the Mods may come up with something similar.

[Nigel G]

Hi Christine

You only have to type the equipment into the search parameters (eg Sigma 175-500)and then it does what you suggest, providing of course people have listed what they use.

[postcardcv]

No doubting that some of the cheaper Sigma lenses are worth serious consideration - I still rate this shot (taken with a 300D and Sigma 170-500 handheld) as one of my best since going over to a dslr, I was really pleased with it.

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/51350/sort/1/cat/500/page/4

[salty]

No doubting that some of the cheaper Sigma lenses are worth serious consideration - I still rate this shot (taken with a 300D and Sigma 170-500 handheld) as one of my best since going over to a dslr, I was really pleased with it.

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/51350/sort/1/cat/500/page/4

yep, very nice work mate! :cool:

[rezMole]

Check out this months (Nov) Photography Monthly. It's got a "Which Digital SLR" pull out, with reviews of the following (overall scores in brackets):
Canon EOS 350D (90)
Canon EOS 20D (91)
Minolta Dynax 5D (93)
Nikon D70 (90)
Nikon D70s (93)
Olympus E-300 (85)
Pentax *ist DL (88)
Pentax *ist DS (86)
Sigma SD10 (69)

Avoid the Olympus due to it being full-frame.
I haven't listed the split scores for handling, features, performance and value - you'll just have to check out the mag. But, as you can see, not a lot in it really (apart from the Sigma).

[salty]

im getting tempted by the 350d, i'll have to see it in the flesh again, and the sigma zoom.

[mjmw]

im getting tempted by the 350d, i'll have to see it in the flesh again, and the sigma zoom.

I am sure others have said this (I can't remember!) - if you think you are going to get more serious with DSLR, then invest in glass. Whatever body you buy today will be superceded pretty soon. BTW, all of the bodies on your short list have pros and cons, but all can give excellent results.

The downside is that good lenses cost more but can last 10+ years - get the right one and you won't want or need to change it. They also hold their value really well - e.g. 2nd hand Canon IS primes are like rocking horse dropppings - people don't change them and get good money when they do. Of course, you have to match the glass to the body, so Nikon or Canon may be the way to go.

However, as you are just starting in the SLR world, you may find you do not like it, so getting a cheaper alternative is a good idea to start. I would recommend looking for a secondhand Sigma zoom (rather than new) - there are a fair few about - more people 'upgrade' from these. You then don't loose that intial cash, just like a car :)

BTW, my original exploits with SLR (kit I sold 4 years ago after getting into digiscoping) were with an EOS 1000, then EOS 300 with a cheap 75-300...you can now buy this set-up for about £150 on ebay!

[salty]

yep, good point.

im thinking of a D50 and sigma 170-500apo, £409 and £436 from warehouse express, a decent combo that i can learn from and still get good pics.

then maybe in the future, get a top-end camera and prime lens if i want to take things to another level, or get more into photography.

[rezMole]

One good thing the Nikon has over the cheaper Canons is that it has spot metering - quite useful when the bird is very small in the centre of the image, or against the sky.

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Sean, Pete - I stand corrected re: handholding the Sigma 500mm prime - I thought it was one of those "bazooka" lenses, and indeed, wish I'd read that before placing my order for the new DG version of the Sigma 80-400mm OS lens.!

It (this one, yeah? http://www.warehouseexpress.co.uk/Images/sigma/500f45ex.jpg) still looks bloody big to handhold, mind!

;)

Actually no, it's still way out of my price range - the new DG version of the 500mm prime is £2595 on Warehouse Express, whereas I'm getting the DG 80-400mm OS from Jacobs for under £800 - cheap enough that I could justify a Kenko 1.4x tcon to go with it...

Hopefully I'll be able to pick up the new lens tomorrow, in which case I'll do what I can with it to mess with Salty's head some more..!

;) ;) ;)

Oh - and many thanks for the kind words about the goldcrests...

[Henry B]

I,m sure the Canons do have spot metering.

[postcardcv]

Actually no, it's still way out of my price range - the new DG version of the 500mm prime is £2595 on Warehouse Express, whereas I'm getting the DG 80-400mm OS from Jacobs for under £800 - cheap enough that I could justify a Kenko 1.4x tcon to go with it...

A new DG one would have been way beyond me too - I was lucky enough to find a non-DG version secondhand in my local camera store. Having bought it a few months ago I'm still trying to justify buying a 1.4tc, it's now at the top of my Christmas list.

The 80-400 OS looks like a great lens, I'm sure you're going to be very happy with it. I know that Sean does very well handholding the 500, but I'm still not great with it, sometimes it's just a bit too much for me. Personally I think the best quality handholdable lens (without breaking the bank) is the Canon 400 f5.6 - though clearly it's no good if you use Nikon!

Salty - if you can get hold of the September issue of Practical Photography, it has a comparisson of the main DSLRs (not the new Minolta though). It rates the Canons (20d and 350D) best overall, however it the Nikon D50 is recommended as the best buy. The reviews aren't the most useful, but the quick guide table is handy for comparing specific features of the models. If you can't get hold of it let me know and I'll send you a copy,

[salty]

im pretty sure i want the D50.

but im still interested to know how people get on with image-stabilised lenses.

anyone use these for birding, and what models do you lot think are ok?

discuss!

[christineredgate]

Salty,I think it has to be an IS lens.Whether zoom or prime.If you suddenly spot a species on a branch or in the undergrowth,would you really have the time to be setting up your tripod.By the time you have everything in situ the bird will have moved on.A quick point and shoot IS lens makes everything far quicker before the bird has chance to spot you.

[Keith Reeder]

Hmmm...

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=439007&postcount=10

[salty]

Salty,I think it has to be an IS lens.Whether zoom or prime.If you suddenly spot a species on a branch or in the undergrowth,would you really have the time to be setting up your tripod.By the time you have everything in situ the bird will have moved on.A quick point and shoot IS lens makes everything far quicker before the bird has chance to spot you.

thats what i was thinking!

i regulary see birds for a split second, and wish id gotten them on film, with a IS lens, i would be able to get loads of great one off shots.

would of had a cracking goshawk shot today, ray fired a few off, but we are not expecting them to be decent.

his D50 is a dream to use though, very nice camera, but i cant help thinking i will have to spend more than expected on a IS lens to get those results im after.

[salty]

Hmmm...

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=439007&postcount=10


is there really no/little difference matey?

let me know, what about other folks out there using IS lenses? - comments please.

[Keith Reeder]

Here's the thing...

Firstly - early days, and I'll give the lens a thorough try before making any firm decisions.

But: I know I can get some pretty sharp shots handheld at 400mm without IS/OS - God knows, I've worked on it.

I had expected from my tests that if I took sets of say, four shots of a printed piece of A4 in OK but not bright light without OS, and could average one sharp shot out of four, that a series of four shots of the same subject with the OS on would improve the ratio of sharp to blurred.

Nope, not a bit of it: time and time again, in a variety of tests, changing the aperture and ISO between series, there was no difference in the number of good to bad shots in sets with OS on and with it off.

The OS is definitely "working" - I can hear and feel the lens doing something - but it doesn't seem to help much...

[SeanKP]

I know that Sean does very well handholding the 500, but I'm still not great with it, sometimes it's just a bit too much for me.

Oh sometimes it's a bit much for me too. I just don't post those pictures!

[Keith Reeder]

but i cant help thinking i will have to spend more than expected on a IS lens to get those results im after. OK - one more time..!

;)

Exactly what results are you after, Richie?

I know you mention "flight shots" and "record shots", but are there any specific shots in the gallery that have made you say "wish I'd taken that"?

Something else to bear in mind. While it's true that you can never have enough reach, there's another way of looking at things: I use 400mm, and I've realised that for me it's plenty, because I've decided to accept that if a bird's too far away, it's too far away.

End of story, no pining over extra reach.

The thing is, if you've got 500mm, you'll wish you had 600mm: if you have 600mm, you'll be hankering after 800mm, unless you make the effort to accept that you won't always get frame-filling shots (and so what? Sometimes it's nice to see more of the bird than the reflection in its eye!)

IS isn't the be-all and end-all (I knew that before buying my new lens, but I hoped that it might help me progress a bit), and there are scads and scads of excellent shots in the gallery that didn't involve a tripod or image stabilisation.

So: what are you really trying to achieve?

It's a shame I didn't know you were heading north today - I could have have talked to you about all this in person. Even though I'm no expert, I've got a fair idea about the right kinds of question to ask.

[salty]

keith, i was just wondering what the D50 would be like with a canon 100-400 IS lens. anyone use this kit?

i know i will have more success with a lens like this, although at £1,100 it aint cheap!

i have seen some sigma lenses that i have had my eye on also:

50-500 ex dg £720

170-500 dg apo £550

170-500 apo £440, what is the difference between this and the dg apo?

the 50-500 ex dg sounds good, as it's more usefull being able to go right down to 50 for landscapes, then bang it up for bird shots.

anyone own these lenses?

[Adey Baker]

keith, i was just wondering what the D50 would be like with a canon 100-400 IS lens. anyone use this kit?



Richie, you can't fit Canon lenses onto Nikon bodies. If you want the 100-400 you'll need a Canon body - presumably, a 350D if you can't afford a 20D

[salty]

Richie, you can't fit Canon lenses onto Nikon bodies. If you want the 100-400 you'll need a Canon boby - presumably, a 350D if you can't afford a 20D

nightmare.

i was really after the 100-400 IS USM.

[Adey Baker]

Stop me if I've said this before, but what you really want is a 20D with a 400mm F5.6L lens... B (:

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Salty,

Adey's already explained the problem with the D50/Canon lens combo.

The point I'm trying to make is that image stabilisation might not make a blind bit of difference, mate.

It's becoming apparent to me that you still need good handholding technique in order get the best out of IS lenses - IS can't be expected to compensate for a lack of (or just a bad) technique.

By definition, once you've learned the technique though, you probably won't really need IS anyway.

I'm starting to think I'm in that situation, though no doubt there will be occasional marginal situations where IS might make the difference, but I'm starting to wonder exactly what the point is (I'm a big fan of the idea, mind).

The 50-500mm is the famous "Bigma". Just do a search - it's an extremely popular lens - and some folk do use it without a tripod.

The main difference between DG and non-DG lenses is that the DG range are designed specifically for use with DSLRs using smaller sensors, as opposed to the newer and hugely expensive full frame DSLRs coming out now: apparently making them specific to the most common DSLR sensor size makes them cheaper to build without hurting optical performance at all...

[rezMole]

Richie,

If you are SO keen on image stabilisation (which i still reckon won't help you when taking pics of fast moving subjects), then maybe you should be considering the Konica Minolta Dynax 5D. At not much over £500 with standard lens, it's rated as a pretty good DSLR. And it has anti shake technology build into the camera!

[Keith Reeder]

Hi rezMole,

to be fair to Salty, he mentioned the Minolta 7D in his first post for the very reason you mention, but Pete (Postcardcv) suggested that lens availability might be a real stumbling block.

I haven't given up on the IS/OS option yet myself - tomorrow I'm going to thrash my new Sigma to within an inch of its life as long as there's any light - but for handholding I'm starting to suspect that it's no replacement for decent technique and a lens that let in plenty of light so that fast shutter speeds are available.

[rezMole]

Hi rezMole,

I haven't given up on the IS/OS option yet myself - tomorrow I'm going to thrash my new Sigma to within an inch of its life as long as there's any light - but for handholding I'm starting to suspect that it's no replacement for decent technique and a lens that let in plenty of light so that fast shutter speeds are available.

I think that's the way to go. If only i had the cash for a AF-SII 600mm F4. At over 6 grand though, i'll be sticking with my Tamron!

As for your comment on lack of lenses - well yes, Minolta's range isn't as large as Canon or Nikon, but Tamron and Sigma lenses are almost all available in Minolta fit.

[Keith Reeder]

Aye, I'd imagine there'd be some Minolta-fit lenses about - it was Pete's suggestion that it might be a problem - but it's certainly something to be considered as part of the bigger picture.

IS/OS is a fantastic idea and I'm sure my Sigma's working (plus, the reviews are invariably top-notch) so it might just be something about the nature of the tests I did in the house that have left me in doubt.

But then again - how do you successfully test the effectiveness of IS for handheld shots?

[rebelxt]

Hi guys, I just bought a Canon 500mm f:4 IS a few weeks ago.

It is a very heavy lens, Keith said "If you have a 500mm next you want is a 600mmm , , ."

The 500mm is already so heavy that I couldn't see myself carrying and pointing 2kg more around.

The IS is absolutely essentlal for this lens if you hand hold it, which I have done so far (my Wimberley head and Gitzo carbon tripod will arrive next week). It makes a huge difference and steadies the image down a lot.

I couldn't recommend the 500mm for anybody who has issues with shoulders, neck, elbows wrist. Try holding up 4000g with your left hand as you would a lens, slightly supported with the right. After a couple of minutes you think your arm might fall off.

Do this for a few hours and the next day you definetily know what it is lilke.

Make no mistake, I love this lens, it is fantastic but physically quite challenging!

Cheers

rebelxt

[rebelxt]

keith, i was just wondering what the D50 would be like with a canon 100-400 IS lens. anyone use this kit?

i know i will have more success with a lens like this, although at £1,100 it aint cheap!

i have seen some sigma lenses that i have had my eye on also:

50-500 ex dg £720

170-500 dg apo £550

170-500 apo £440, what is the difference between this and the dg apo?

the 50-500 ex dg sounds good, as it's more usefull being able to go right down to 50 for landscapes, then bang it up for bird shots.

anyone own these lenses?

I had the 170-500mm, didn't like it but would recommend the 50-500mm!

Look at the photos of Mitcon, a wonderful lens, not too heavy and reasonable in price!

[greypoint]

A lot to read through here! My only experience with IS is in using the cheaper Canon lenses - the 28-135mm was great as it tended to be used for low light 'static' subjects where it really helped. The 70-300mm was a waste of time for birds and I kept forgetting to switch it off and got lots of blurry stuff. I know it's not quite the same for the expensive lenses. Unless you are really set on spending a load of money on Canon lenses then the advice remains to handle all of them because that is still the crunch question 'which camera am I really going to feel happiest using?'. Minolta lenses get some great reviews and there are often a lot on Ebay at reasonable prices - if you're going for something like the Bigma then the anti-shake could be useful.
The essence of capturing birds in flight is practice and whatever you get you may be disappointed at first!

[salty]

i have had a good read about, and im still very tempted by these combos.:

(1) canon 350D 100-400 IS USM

(2) nikon D50 50-500 EX DG

the canon lens get's nothing but praise, i have seen some awesome work with it. the camera is a little small to hold for me, although very nice still

the d50 is easy to hold but im not too clued up on lenses that would suit it. although the one mentioned seems a corker.

[Keith Reeder]

Either of those set-ups would be great, Richie (or the Canon plus the Sigma, which is Mitcon's kit).

Just to throw a small spanner in the works, might I suggest that you consider the D70s as well as the D50?

I mention this because I've been reading up on the D50 and - smashing little camera though it is - I've found that it provides such good "out of the box" pictures because it has more aggressive in-camera noise reduction than the D70/D70s, but this can sometimes mean a loss of fine detail.

You have more control of noise reduction if its done from the desktop rather than in the camera...

[salty]

Either of those set-ups would be great, Richie (or the Canon plus the Sigma, which is Mitcon's kit).

Just to throw a small spanner in the works, might I suggest that you consider the D70s as well as the D50?

I mention this because I've been reading up on the D50 and - smashing little camera though it is - I've found that it provides such good "out of the box" pictures because it has more aggressive in-camera noise reduction than the D70/D70s, but this can sometimes mean a loss of fine detail.

You have more control of noise reduction if its done from the desktop rather than in the camera...

i have looked at the D70, but is it still worth a £160 more than the D50?

mitcons pics are breathtaking, his and other 350D users first got me interested in that camera, plus it is still almost £360 cheaper than the 20D!

that is why i would rather have a less expensive, but still awesome camera, and spend more money on a better lens like the 50-500 or the 100-400 IS.

heres a review of the canon lens:

http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php?product=25&sort=7&cat=14&page=1

[Keith Reeder]

In that case I think we're getting there, Salty...

The D50 or the 350D will both do you proud (I'm not for a second suggesting that the D50 can't take great shots - I've seen 'em), and I suspect that the Sigma 50-500 will give you the ideal combination of reach and manageability.

[salty]

In that case I think we're getting there, Salty...

The D50 or the 350D will both do you proud (I'm not for a second suggesting that the D50 can't take great shots - I've seen 'em), and I suspect that the Sigma 50-500 will give you the ideal combination of reach and manageability.


in the review section, the sigma 50-500 is said to be difficult to use handheld, and overall quality is an issue.

any thoughts on this?

[greypoint]

Well, today i did a test between the D70 and D50 - the D50 had my nikkor 80-200 f2.8 and the D70 my Sigma 135-400 attached so it was not an altogether equal test. Controls on the D70 should make it quicker to use but in practice I did'nt notice much difference. The D50 does give more 'straight from camera' images and combined with the nikkor they can be amazingly sharp with no need for tweaking. Having had both slung round my neck whilst photographing around the lakes I must admit it was the D70 I put back in the bag and the D50 i kept out for anything I saw on the way home. That probably had more to do with the lens but the D50 does feel better somehow- if you want a good fast lens without breaking the bank the 80-200 f2.8 can be bought for under 300.00 on Ebay [the older versions anyway].

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Richie,

a bit of selective reading, there, mate!

;)

One review says "It is virtually unusable handheld" but the very next one says "And, even then, it is a lot lighter and easier to hand-hold. All of the above shots were hand-held at 500 to 1000mm" about these excellent shots:

http://www.brsd.ab.ca/nnorway/carrweb/oct_2005/oct2Bweb/focus1a.jpg
http://www.brrd.ab.ca/nnorway/carrweb/sept/s26_web/S26%20136_x.jpg
http://www.brsd.ab.ca/nnorway/carrweb/oct_2005/oct2web/oct2%20119.jpg

All I know is that there are loads of folk on here that use the 50-500mm handheld, and that some excellent pictures have resulted.

Sooner or later you're going to have to bite the bullet and take the plunge, and - honestly - on the strength of shots like those above, the 50-500mm looks like a cracking option.

[salty]

yep, a little confusing to read at times mate!

those pics are breathtaking, what camera was responsible?

[Keith Reeder]

They were with Canon bodies, Salty - yer man says:

"I am now using the Mark II body which definitely helps with capturing flight and shooting at high ISO. The combination is excellent. However, I still got extremely decent photographs with the 300D prior to my Mark II purchase".

[salty]

They were with Canon bodies, Salty - yer man says:

"I am now using the Mark II body which definitely helps with capturing flight and shooting at high ISO. The combination is excellent. However, I still got extremely decent photographs with the 300D prior to my Mark II purchase".

those canons are really impressive.

i think a 350D with IS 100-400 would be an ideal combo, the 350 is producing some awesome work, the gallery is stacked full of great pics from this camera.

if i was to go for the canon, i would get the canon lens, if a was to get the d50, the sigma would be the one for me.

im going to be using the camera for allsorts, long walks without a scope, bike rides, hide work, woodland and town work, coastal flight shots etc etc.

so i dont mind splashing the cash as im going to be using the kit to the full potential.

[rezMole]

in the review section, the sigma 50-500 is said to be difficult to use handheld, and overall quality is an issue.

any thoughts on this?

Then why have you discounted the Tamron 200-500mm? From what i gather it is far more conpact than the Sigma 50-500, is pretty easy to use handheld, has APO glass (although Tamron don't call it APO), costs slightly less than the new sigma, takes sharper pictures with the aperture fully open (which is what you'll end up needing), is only 2.5x zoom rather than the Sigmas' 10x (i always have doubts about long zoom ranges), and at only 1.2kg is pretty light.

[rezMole]

Richie, you'll also need to budget for a card. May i suggest the Integral i-Pro 2GB CF. I now use one of these all the time and it is excellent. Think it cost me slightly over £100 (my first 256kb card cost me £40!). It hold 320-350 shots (shooting in RAW plus small JPEG) - ample for a whole days birding (or even a long weekend if you don't go mad).

[jiminlondon99]

[QUOTE=Keith Reeder]They were with Canon bodies, Salty - yer man says:

"I am now using the Mark II body which definitely helps with capturing flight and shooting at high ISO. The combination is excellent. However, I still got extremely decent photographs with the 300D prior to my Mark II purchase".

You may find the link below helpful?

http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_vs_20d.html#better

The one feature that would convince me to buy the 20d over the 350 is the 3200iso setting which is = to 1 stop more on the shutter speed. The majority of my bird in flight pictures are at 1600iso and the faster shutter speed would useful if you are handholding the telephoto.

Jim

[rezMole]

those canons are really impressive.

i think a 350D with IS 100-400 would be an ideal combo, the 350 is producing some awesome work.

Sorry Salty, but the photographers are producing some awsome work, not the cameras! Cameras and lenses go some way to producing shots that are sharp, in focus etc,. But they are not necessarily "awsome shots". There are thousands of shots of birds out there that essentially look like everyone elses - most of mine included! Getting that truely awsome shot takes photographic skill and many years of practice. Please don't fall into the trap that such-and-such gear combination will get you better pictures than a different manufacturers combination. It won't. That's why all my purchases have been based on what feels comfortable to work with.

I was always into Canon gear. But when it came to going digital, i switched to Nikon purely because the D70 felt better that the Canon 300D.

[salty]

rezmole:

i have been impressed by the tamron, although i want an allround lens, 200mm is still a little too much, and i could live with 100mm.

[myotis]

right then.......

after my succesfull (although a right pain at times) scope dilemma thread, i now want a decent DSLR, and you lot can help me out again.

A few things that I don't think have been mentioned, and possibly worth considering.

1. Have a look beyond your immediate needs. It may be totally irrelevant now, but once someone has gone with Canon or Nikon and spent lots money on either system, most cannot then afford to make a switch.

I think that the Nikon D2x looks like an ideal bird camera because of the dual sensor size. This instantly extends the reach of what ever lens you happen to have on the camera at the time. This speeds things up and potentially avoids changing lenses - a major isssue with digital cameras because it allows dust onto the sensor and something best avoided. And indeed a argument for the Sigma 50 -500, which should minimise lens changes.

If you have an interest in landscape and close ups as well as birds then the larger sensor option available in the Canon series of cameras may be worth thinking about in the long term. At the moment the larger sensor Canons seem to give no obvious quality advantage over the smaller sensored Nikon D2x. But as each maker leap frogs each other in technology, the larger sensor will always have the potential for giving higher quality.

2. Nikon have had a bad time keeping pace with technology and have introduced many "interim" lenses just so they can fill a perceived gap in the market. This makes buying second hand Nikon lenses a bit of a mine field, because unless you have an expert knowledge of the nuances of each model you could end up with something that isn't just what you wanted.

Canon lenses on the other hand have been much more stable in features and compatibility for a longer period. So there is a much better choice of second hand lenses around that are identical to their modern counterparts. For example, all the Canon long lenses have had Image Stabilisation for many years, where this has only become available in Nikon lenses more recently.

Possibly as a consequence of Nikons rush into getting some lenses out the door, there also seem to be some iffy Nikon lenses out there. Mind you I think the same applies for some Canon lenses.

3. The only way to know what lens suits you, is to have an extended period of using it for real. So again, although it may seem to be looking too far ahead, I would think about how any lens you buy now will fit into any future purchases. And you won't know what that is until you get out there. So as a starting point, it probably doesn't matter what lens you get.

However, as a one lens outfit, I would certainly start with a Zoom and I would probably go with a Sigma. If you are mainly interested in garden birds, set up shots maybe from a hide or other vantage point, flying birds and mammals, then the Sigma 80-400 with stabilisation seems a good choice, you can always put a teleconvertor on it to extend the reach. Or buy a Nikon D2x , if you have a spare £3000 lying around :-)

If you are mainly interested in more ad hoc photographs, estuary birds, flocks of distant geese etc then the 50-500 sigma would seem a great all round lens that will allow to general shots as well as tighter shots of individual birds or groups of birds. But without the built in stabilisation. And it is holding the lens steady, and getting it focussed properly will be the biggest issue in terms of quality, rather than it being a Nikon or Canon. Using a 500mm lens and getting high quality results is difficult.

It is a hard decision and after looking at the long term potential of buying into the Nikon or Canon systems, there is no substitute for going into a camera shop and having a play with the cameras you are considering buying.

Also have a read of the reviews at http://www.dcresource.com/ http://www.steves-digicams.com/ http://www.imaging-resource.com/ and http://www.dpreview.com/

The other place well worth having a look at is http://www.fredmiranda.com/ . useful to search the forums and there is a users review section.

I hope that at least "some" of this is useful

Graham

[postcardcv]

As for your comment on lack of lenses - well yes, Minolta's range isn't as large as Canon or Nikon, but Tamron and Sigma lenses are almost all available in Minolta fit.

I had been told that a number of the new Sigma lenses are not made in Minolta fit - a certainly from looking at online retailers this seems to be the case - ten of the new lenses are not listed in Minota fit on warehouse.

in the review section, the sigma 50-500 is said to be difficult to use handheld, and overall quality is an issue.

This is the lens my brother uses and he gets some stunning results. I don't think it's any harder to handhold than other lenses at 500, personally I'd prefer this to the Canon 100-400IS. I don't like the push/pull zoom on the Canon, if IS is a big issue for you have a look at the Sigma 80-400OS, you could get this for either the Canon or Nikon.

[Keith Reeder]

Re: the Sigma 80-400mm OS, as I've posted tonight on another thread:

I've just come in after taking about 120 shots through the new lens.

And I can say, hand on heart, that it is impossible to identify any benefit from OS with this lens...

Yes, it's very dull and grey out there, but that's when OS - you'd think - would make the difference. And yet there is no quantifiable difference whatsoever, on average, between the stabilised and the non stabilised pictures.

None.

There isn't a single image which I can look at and say - "oh aye, the OS saved that shot..." and I don't mind admitting that I'm very, very disappointed.

Don't think I was expecting miracles from the thing - I wasn't.

The reason I bought it was purely so that I could stop the camera down to increase the DOF of close shots (thereby getting more of the subject sharp), but without the resultant loss in shutter speed killing any chance of a sharp picture.

This is precisely what the lens is meant to do, and in my experience so far, it doesn't deliver to any extent I can recognise from the pictures I've taken today - and I'd say that out of 120 pictures I'd be able to see some benefit if it was there.

Oh - and it absolutely eats battery charge: from an indicated full charge (the battery was only charged at the beginning of the week and this is the first time I've been out with the camera this week) to a quarter of the charge left after only 120 captures!

Not a happy bunny, I'm afraid.

[salty]

interesting thoughts guys, thanks.

what are you going to do now then kieth? - any shots worth showing us?

[pete schofield]

Hi another tuppence worth, I said on my original post on this thread that you would be better sorting what lens you want before the camera.

The lens does most of the work, most camera's that have been mentioned will all give good service, BUT will all be out of date in 6 months whereas lens go on forever.

Read with interest the IS dilemma, If you are staying around the 400mm mark and have a camera with predictive focusing and the capability of taking +5 shots a sec I cannot see why you need it. I have a Gannet shot in my gallery that was taken on a moving boat 4 miles out from Flamboro with a Canon 400 F5.6 using AI servo and multi shot. There were 7 shots in the sequence and 5 were in focus.

Get the best lens you can afford then stick a camera on the end.

Pete

[salty]

Hi another tuppence worth, I said on my original post on this thread that you would be better sorting what lens you want before the camera.

The lens does most of the work, most camera's that have been mentioned will all give good service, BUT will all be out of date in 6 months whereas lens go on forever.

Read with interest the IS dilemma, If you are staying around the 400mm mark and have a camera with predictive focusing and the capability of taking +5 shots a sec I cannot see why you need it. I have a Gannet shot in my gallery that was taken on a moving boat 4 miles out from Flamboro with a Canon 400 F5.6 using AI servo and multi shot. There were 7 shots in the sequence and 5 were in focus.

Get the best lens you can afford then stick a camera on the end.

Pete

good advice.

im really after the canon still, i think it is a cracking lens that would serve me well.

[postcardcv]

im really after the canon still, i think it is a cracking lens that would serve me well.

In that case I guess the 350D is the camera for you, noticeably cheaper than the 20D, but still delivers excellent images. A useful comparison between eth 350D and the 20D: http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_vs_20d.html

If you do get a 350D I'd recommend (again) getting the battery grip, makes the camera much more comfortable in the hand and makes shootnig in portrait much easier. I can't compare to the Nikons, but the battery life is excellent, using two batteries in the grip I can get well over 2000 shots before it tells me the power is getting low.

[christineredgate]

Yes,Salty,the 350d is a great little cam.I am using it with the 300 lens,it is very light and takes great pics.Ignore the reviews that mention it is akin to a biscuit tin etc,it is a good cam.I opted not to use the battery grip as I have bought it purely for its weight,and adding the grip would defeat the object.But if you have largish hands ,as I have then you would be better off purchasing the grip.Please let us know what is your final decision ,Salty,as reading this thread each evening is keeping me in suspense.

[salty]

Yes,Salty,the 350d is a great little cam.I am using it with the 300 lens,it is very light and takes great pics.Ignore the reviews that mention it is akin to a biscuit tin etc,it is a good cam.I opted not to use the battery grip as I have bought it purely for its weight,and adding the grip would defeat the object.But if you have largish hands ,as I have then you would be better off purchasing the grip.Please let us know what is your final decision ,Salty,as reading this thread each evening is keeping me in suspense.

will do Christine;)

the 350D was my original choice before any other DSLR. i was let down by the handling when i first tried it out, but the results it gives are not to be taken lightly, they are simple breathtaking!

the D50 is a dream to handle, but i love those canon lenses, another good point of the D50 is the price, a good £100 cheaper.

anyhoo, i shall let you know how things develop ;)

[Keith Reeder]

The 350D is a great camera, but bear in mind what a few folk have said on this thread and elsewhere Richie - it's photographer, not the camera, that's responsible for breathtaking pictures - I've seen some real dross from 350Ds, D70s, 20Ds - you name it.

And you still have to get the lens choice right, or it'll hardly matter what body you end up with: and just like with the body, even the best lens won't guarantee decent (much less great) pictures in the wrong hands.

If you take Pete's advice about the battery grip (I'd need it - the 350D would be too small for me otherwise, and I'm about half your size! ;)) you're talking about another £100-odd (£120 from Warehouse Express), plus another £90 for two batteries - £740 all in if you get the camera for £530.

You're getting perilously close to 20D territory there, big guy!

;)

[cab1024]

will do Christine;)

the 350D was my original choice before any other DSLR. i was let down by the handling when i first tried it out, but the results it gives are not to be taken lightly, they are simple breathtaking!

the D50 is a dream to handle, but i love those canon lenses, another good point of the D50 is the price, a good £100 cheaper.

anyhoo, i shall let you know how things develop ;)
So that is the question then, isn't it? And it is the one I'm asking too. The Nikon D50 or the Canon 350D?

I'm thinking of selling all my film Nikon bodies and lenses to get into a digital SLR outfit. Every time I try to break away from Nikon, I end up getting one anyway.

The D50 with 18-55 & 55-200 mm ED lenses for $999US seems like an unbeatable deal. True, the 200mm side is f/5.6 and with a teleconverter, f/8, I guess. But in the meantime while saving up for a $1000US lens I would have most of my bases covered (that's a baseball term for the Europeans ;-).

The Canon lenses do sound great, but the new EF70-300/4-5.6 IS USM is $650 and the 350D body is $800. And you don't have a wide to normal focal range for non-wildlife photos.

In non-SLR digital cameras Canon seems to be the undisputed champ. I have a Coolpix 5400 and it seems like a joke next to my brother's Canon G5 -- and they cost nearly the same when we got them a couple of years ago. But is that the case with SLR's? Are the Canons still better, or has Nikon finally caught up, and is Canon expected to surpass them again anytime soon?

If I sell my old gear, my FM, FE2, and N70 bodies and accumulated lenses, I don't want to buy the SLR equivalent to the 5400. It sounded great when I bought it too.

[Leo S]

I think someone said it earlier, and pete schofield also said more or less the same thing: Choose the glass first... and, I would add, Invest in the glass, but treat DSLR bodies as you would "film"

[postcardcv]

the D50 is a dream to handle, but i love those canon lenses, another good point of the D50 is the price, a good £100 cheaper.

Sounds like you've made you decision - the 350D might be a more expensive option but will you be happy with anyone elses lenses?


If you take Pete's advice about the battery grip (I'd need it - the 350D would be too small for me otherwise, and I'm about half your size! ) you're talking about another £100-odd (£120 from Warehouse Express), plus another £90 for two batteries - £740 all in if you get the camera for £530.

Yes it's another expense, but well worth it - personally I paid £80 for a battery grip and £15 for two third party batteries - all from ebay, all new and working fine. But it's still another £100 on top of the camera price - but who kows you might find you're happy enough without the grip...

[SeanKP]

Sounds like you've made you decision - the 350D might be a more expensive option but will you be happy with anyone elses lenses?

Yes it's another expense, but well worth it - personally I paid £80 for a battery grip and £15 for two third party batteries - all from ebay, all new and working fine. But it's still another £100 on top of the camera price - but who kows you might find you're happy enough without the grip...

Salty, I think you'll be very happy with the 350D if that's what you go for. I certainly love mine and for what it's worth, I wouldn't dream of putting a battery grip on it. Maybe it's because all the other cameras I've had recently have been very small point and shoot jobbies or maybe it just suits me, but I actually see the smallness of the 350D as an advantage.

The other thing people tend to criticise it for is the plasticky feel to it. It may give the impression of being plasticky but mine doesn't get very sympathetic treatment from me. It has been knocked quite hard on several occasions with no adverse effects. You wouldn't want to drop it from a great height but then again that probably goes for just about any camera.

As to lenses, both the Bigma and the 100-400L seem to be capable of some stunning results in the right hands. Personally, I'd go for the Bigma if I were starting again because I know that I'd be wanting that extra reach on a lot of occasions. One thing I'd recommend is checking out the difference in magnification between 400mm and 500mm. You might be surprised at how much difference it makes.

Sean

[salty]

got my camera today folks!

canon EOS 350D (silver)
free canon bag
canon 18-55 lens

sigma 170-500 apo

i got the sigma as it will give me decent shots, albeit mainly from my tripod, and it was almost £700 cheaper than the IS canon one i fancied.

the small lens i got with the kit is great, i have been messing around in the house and garden and im well impressed with it, it will be ideal for my landscape shots etc. i will also be using it for portraits, close-ups, partys etc etc.

the 500mm lens will be my birding tool, and im going to try it out on my tripod tomorrow, if the weather is ok,

i almost bought the battery grip today too, but im tempted to leave it be, as the the 350D isnt as bad to hold with the small lens on, and with the big lens attached, it will be mostly on the tripod anyway.

i will however get another spare battery or 2. i will try and get the best i can out of my combo, and will try and foget about prime lenses etc untill i can justify spending millions of pounds of more kit!

[markho]

Good luck mate. look forward to seeing your pictures.

[Keith Reeder]

Arrrggghhh!!

Six pages of trying to help Salty find the perfect lens for handholding - and now he tells us he's going to use it on a tripod!!!

;)

Pleased you're finally sorted, Richie (for this week anyway!) - where did you get the kit?

Any reason why you went for the silver livery? Birds can see silver cameras from miles away, y'know..!

;) ;) ;)

[salty]

Arrrggghhh!!

Six pages of trying to help Salty find the perfect lens for handholding - and now he tells us he's going to use it on a tripod!!!

;)

Pleased you're finally sorted, Richie (for this week anyway!) - where did you get the kit?

Any reason why you went for the silver livery? Birds can see silver cameras from miles away, y'know..!

;) ;) ;)

got it from jessops mate. prices were the same.

at jacobs, they said there is a 2 week waiting list, as they are having trouble keeping them instore with canon doing a £100 cashback, if bought on the net with a master card.

although the silver one is usually more expensive than the black version, it has recently been reduced to match.

i have been trying it out in the garden handheld, at 170 it is great, really fast with great detail, but im going to have to work on my 'technique' for standing shots! ;)

still need to get a decent compact flash card too, as i only have 2, 256mb ones at the moment.

it was a close call with this and the D50, but i went with my head at the last moment, the reviews speak for themselves, as do the sales figures and actual pics.

[Yelvertoft]

Arrrggghhh!!

Six pages of trying to help Salty find the perfect lens for handholding - and now he tells us he's going to use it on a tripod!!!




My thoughts exactly!! ;)

I'm glad this dilemma has finally been sorted. I't's certainly been HIGHLY entertaining to read the angst of Salty's procrastination. all I say now is: Go out there and USE IT. Fer Christ's sake man, get out there and take LOTS of pictures with it. Don't care what the subject is, just get out there and use it. There really isn't that much difference between any of the big name brands. The difference is primarily down to the user, not the equipment. The user will get better with practice, this is the reason for the biggest improvement you will see.

[christineredgate]

Conggrats,Salty,at long last.This thread has been highly entertaining,and very informative.Looks like we will comparing 350 pics ,well when the rain stops,ie.I bought a used 300 lens to use with the 350 and with the 1x4 converter the shots are fine,so am going to try the 2xconverter,as it should take better shots than the 100-400,and will not be as heavy to handhold.
good luck with the set up,Salty,do keep us informed re your progress,also how is the digiscoping going,don't give up with that.Try comparing digiscoped shots at the same distance as with the 500.

[salty]

cheers folks, you have been a great help. :t:

i wont be sacking the digiscoping set-up, far from it really.

i will however be taking my new DSLR on long walks, and will be taking shots of landscapes, buildings, the sky, animals and insects, everything i can really!

my gallery will soon be going int overtime!

i hope i get good images, but it will take me a while to master my camera i expect. :cool:

[mjmw]

Wow! Hadn't checked this thread for a few hours and was stumbling around the gallery when I saw a pic of your shiney new kit! Congrats - looking forward to seeing the results.
Just think, you have all the joy of exposure to look forward to - and that doesn't mean prancing around with just your boxing gloves ;)

Cheers Mark.

[salty]

Wow! Hadn't checked this thread for a few hours and was stumbling around the gallery when I saw a pic of your shiney new kit! Congrats - looking forward to seeing the results.
Just think, you have all the joy of exposure to look forward to - and that doesn't mean prancing around with just your boxing gloves ;)

Cheers Mark.


LOL! - im busy reading the 'destruction' manual i got with it at the moment, i cant wait untill i finish work tomorrow so i can shoot some red kites with it, now i have mentioned that, it will no doubt rain for the next few days solid!


o:)

[SeanKP]

LOL! - im busy reading the 'destruction' manual i got with it at the moment, i cant wait untill i finish work tomorrow so i can shoot some red kites with it, now i have mentioned that, it will no doubt rain for the next few days solid!


o:)
Brilliant news. I am positive you will love your 350D Salty. It's a cracking camera. I'm really looking forward to seeing your gallery expand over the coming months.

There are much better folk at hand-holding than me but I find it helps in difficult situations to hold the camera tight to my cheek, relax, breathe slowly, push the shutter half down and wait until focus is achieved, then gently roll my finger over the shutter rather than pressing it. Obviously, a faster shutter speed usuall helps and to that end I often find myself selecting ISO 400 which, with the 350D seeems to be about the highest ISO for acceptable noise.

Good luck.

Sean

[hollis_f]

got my camera today folks!
i will however get another spare battery or 2.

Congrats on your new purchase, I'm sure it'll produce some great results.

For new batteries I'd strongly recommend Sterlingtek (http://store.yahoo.com/sterlingtek/ln03-canon-bp-511-dlc511.html) where you can pick up a new battery for just $12. That means you can get two of them posted from the US and it comes in at just under the £18 limit for VAT payment.

[Keith Reeder]

Good advice there from Sean, to which I'd add use the burst/continuous shooting mode when shooting handheld.

I usually fire off three or four exposures at a time in the expectation of at least one being OK or better...

[SeanKP]

Good advice there from Sean, to which I'd add use the burst/continuous shooting mode when shooting handheld.

I usually fire off three or four exposures at a time in the expectation of at least one being OK or better...
Keith's right. Usually I find the second one is the sharpest for some reason.

[Tannin]

Yup. Same for me. Fire in short bursts, and the second shot is usually the best one. (But not always.) I do this when I am digiscoping too.

[Keith Reeder]

Heh! Me too - if only we could figure out what makes that second shot special!

;)

[Tannin]

My theory, Keith, is that it works like this:

1st shot: camera movement from your hands, even though you try to damp it out and squeze gently.

2nd shot: the initial movement is damped out - even that tiny extra pressure of your finger on the shutter is gone now.

3rd shot & subsequent: you start getting vibrations again, caused by your muscle tension.

Last shot: Often the worst, probably because your hands are working again getting ready to release the shutter. But if you don't take it, the muscle pre-release tension applies to the shot before, or the shot before that. You can reduce this with practice and concentration.

(With digicams that have slow repeat rates, this last-shot rule doesn't apply so much, as you have a good half second. With the 20D, you have 0.2 of a second! I'm forever taking about twice as many shots as I intended to. Salty, you better budget on some big flash cards - you won't believe how fast your 350D will fill up a 512MB card.)

[Keith Reeder]

Yeah, that matches my take on it too, Tannin.

[Adey Baker]

There's some good advice, then, Salty - only take two shots in burst mode as any more will be a waste of time and space! That'll save on batteries and cards...

[Tannin]

Three shots, or four, I'd say. Otherwise your second shot tends to suffer from "last shot syndrome". But you do murder a lot of electrons doing that.

[Keith Reeder]

;)

With computers being so clever these days, surely somebody could write a firmware update that recognised all shots as "notional 2nd shots"?

[postcardcv]

;)

With computers being so clever these days, surely somebody could write a firmware update that recognised all shots as "notional 2nd shots"?

Or maybe they could build in some sort of time delay in the camera so that there is a slight pause between pressing the button and the photo being taken, this could counter the initial shake and make the first shot the good one...

they could call it shutter lag... |:D|

[Keith Reeder]

:D

Microsoft are working on that "feature" as we speak!

;)

[pete schofield]

Congrats Ritchie I hope the 4 of you will be very happy together, and we wait with anticipation for the offspring.

Pete

[salty]

does anyone mind posting there settings?

i have been getting good results in auto, but im dabbling with AV and TV modes, with good results, but im yet to get a good day's testing outdoors, due to the dark/wet days we are having at the moment.

[SeanKP]

Hi Salty

It really depends on the light but if it's dark like at the moment I'll stick it in AV mode, wide open or the next stop down and then adjust the ISO until I can get a usable shutter speed.

Sean

[Tannin]

Simple starting settings:

Centre focus to begin with, spot metering (well, as close to that as the Canon will go, which is close enough).

Av mode for birds, always. Set the lens as wide open as it will go (for best light = fast shutter speed) then back off one stop (wide open is not as sharp as stopped down a bit). Now (important!) set the ISO to 400. This really helps your shutter speed. The 350D will produce practically noise-free shots at 400 ISO. (On my 20D, even 800 is still good. Try that too, and judge for yourself.) Leave everything else on auto.

[DavidP]

due to the dark/wet days we are having at the moment.


After the sort of summers we usually have here in southern California, we dream of dark/wet days, trouble is even New Years day can be 85 and sunny, all sunny all the time can get to be a bit of a drag, but probably good for photography.

[salty]

thanks folks, a little sunshine after work today had me out after red kites.

these shots were on auto, and at around 450mm.

[postcardcv]

thanks folks, a little sunshine after work today had me out after red kites.

these shots were on auto, and at around 450mm.

Excellent stuff - I'm guessing you're happy with your new set up...

[salty]

Excellent stuff - I'm guessing you're happy with your new set up...

yep, i love it!

90% of shots are still dodgy, but i was expecting that still. i just need to find some good settings for days when the sun isnt shining etc.

the shots of landscapes, and animals etc are unreal with the little lens. :cool:

[christineredgate]

Good shots,Salty.yes the sun has been great today,but can I butt in on your thread and ask a question please.What exactly is "wide open" and "One stop down"?.I have been taking shots today with a 350 and the 300F4 lens plus 1x4 converter.In the viewfinder all images looked great,but when transferred to the pc they all seemed overexposed,well most of them.I have spent ages fiddling around in Elements trying to adjust the contrast etc.I found this happened when I first used the 20d,and soon returned to the 300.I am using the lighter set up at the moment as it is easier on my arms,not so painful holding the cam and lens.I am using the P mode as that is the setting I have always used and the iso was set to 200.But I do not really understand F stops etc.Also was using auto focus.This cam and lens with extender focuses very quickly on the auto setting.Tried the 20d with the 2x and 100-400 lens had to use MF but could not tell in the viewfinder when exactly the pic was pin sharp,and was also very heavy to handhold.

[SeanKP]

Hi Christine

Wide open means shooting on the maximum aperture (smallest number) your lens will allow, so on your 300mm f4, shooting wide open would be shooting at f4. You can adjust the aperture in increments of half a stop. One stop down would be shooting at f5.6 which is the next but one lowest number that your lens will allow.

Shooting with your tele converter confuses things slightly because it has a one stop penalty so with the lens and the converter the maximum aperture you can shoot (wide open) is f5.6 and one stop down would be f8.

As to why your shots were over-exposed, I'm not sure. It could be that the tc you are using is affecting the auto-exposure but in my experience with the Kenko tc this has usually led to under-exposed shots.

It's also possible that the particular subjects were causing the problem. Some subjects can cause the camera difficulties. For example, if you were shooting pictures of a white bird amongst a darker background the camera will probably expose for the background and the bird will be over-exposed. The trick then is to know that is going to happen and set the exposure compensation appropriately. What exactly were you photographing? That would help give us a better idea of the problem.

Sean

[SeanKP]

It's also possible that the particular subjects were causing the problem. Some subjects can cause the camera difficulties. For example, if you were shooting pictures of a white bird amongst a darker background the camera will probably expose for the background and the bird will be over-exposed. The trick then is to know that is going to happen and set the exposure compensation appropriately. What exactly were you photographing? That would help give us a better idea of the problem.

Actually, Salty's cracking Kite shots are an example of the camera exposing for the background, in this case the sky. Because this is much brighter than the bird the bird is a bit darker than it would ideally be. If Salty had adjusted the exposure compensation by one stop the sky wouldn't have been such a lovely blue but the bird would bave been a bit brighter. I've taken the liberty of adjusting the brightness of one of Salty's shots to illustrate the point. I hope you don't mind Salty!

Sean

[mjmw]

I have just started a new thread to try to answer some of the recent usage questions.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=443241#post443241

Probably done before, but this is intended to start from the ground up...rather than make assumptions on knowledge or ability. I hope that others with more explicit technique tips can also add to this!

Cheers Mark.

[SeanKP]

I have just started a new thread to try to answer some of the recent usage questions.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=443241#post443241

Probably done before, but this is intended to start from the ground up...rather than make assumptions on knowledge or ability. I hope that others with more explicit technique tips can also add to this!

Cheers Mark.
I've just seen it Mark. An excellent idea and explained far more coherently than my vague ramblings.

Cheers.

Sean

[mjmw]

I've just seen it Mark. An excellent idea and explained far more coherently than my vague ramblings.

Cheers.

Sean

Thanks and I've just seen your previous two posts...it took me a while to type that lot ;)

Your posts are exactly where I was going, before deciding I had typed enough already!

[christineredgate]

Thanks,Sean,still not really sure,I guess it could be the different colours in the plumage,as when shots are taken of,dogs,people,buildings etc,with a smaller lens,everything is crystal clear.I guess I will never get the hang of F stops etc,but will go to the thread shown and have a read.

[christineredgate]

Mark,I have been to your thread and printed off the contents,it must have taken you ages to type all that,many thanks indeed,for trying to help the "technically challenged" of us,it really is appreciated.

[Adey Baker]

thanks folks, a little sunshine after work today had me out after red kites.

these shots were on auto, and at around 450mm.

Seeing your shots of Red Kites I was going to say you're going to become competition for Helenol - I was surprised she hadn't commented already but then I see she hasn't been online for over five weeks. Anyone know if she's OK?

[Keith Reeder]

Helen posted a comment in the gallery on the 26th Adey, so she's still about - hopefully that means all is well.

[Adey Baker]

Helen posted a comment in the gallery on the 26th Adey, so she's still about - hopefully that means all is well.

That's good to know - her last 'activity' is recorded as Sept 21st so posting in the gallery obviously doesn't record in one's profile, then.

[Valerie]

Helen posted a comment in the gallery on the 26th Adey, so she's still about - hopefully that means all is well.


I just checked the gallery for Helen (Helenol) .... its says she last posted a photo on the 20th September and also made her last comment about a wren on the same day. Last online 21st September. So, not sure why you think she has been on here Keith.

However, I can confirm she is alive and well ;) .... so no need for anyone to be worried.

[PatT]

I've been using the KM 7D for 7 months now. For bird photography the anti-shake is invaluable. When shooting in the shadows or low light with a slow shutter speed you will need to stabilize the camera either with a tripod, monopod, lens stabilization or KM's anti-shake. Lugging a tripod or monopod can be very tiring. Canon and Nikon lenses with built in stabilization are very expensive and heavy. KM's anti-shake will work with all lenses. I use my Sigma 400/5.6 APO with the anti-shake and it works perfectly. By mistake I used this combo with the anti-shake turned off. All pictures were blurry. I immediately turned the anti-shake back on and then the pictures were flawless. I just bought one of Minolta's "G" zoom lenses. Ths glass is every bit as good as Canon's and Nikon's best...
Pat

[cranstall]

Hi Salty
If you go down the second hand route for a long lens just be aware that of the fact that all nikon and only some cannon lens will work on all their respective dslr bodies and at the end off day even a 300 2/8 weighs a lot when you go on holiday.
all the best Peter

[waxfree]

I have been shooting for several years, both digitally and with film.
Best advice I ever received is: Buy inexpensive camera such as Rebel. Invest in good glass first such as Canon 300/4 L ($1200) or Nikon equivalent. Glass will definitely outlast the camera. The value of the glass does not depreciate. High resale. Cameras come and go. The quality of image does not vary too much between systems (Nikon, Canon etc.). A 6 mexapixel Nikon is as good as 6 megapixel Canon.

There are many good internet sites that will guide you in your purchase.

[waxfree]

I have been shooting for several years, both digitally and with film.
Best advice I ever received is: Buy inexpensive camera such as Rebel. Invest in good glass first such as Canon 300/4 L ($1200) or Nikon equivalent. Glass will definitely outlast the camera. The value of the glass does not depreciate. High resale. Cameras come and go. The quality of image does not vary too much between systems (Nikon, Canon etc.). A 6 mexapixel Nikon is as good as 6 megapixel Canon.

There are many good internet sites that will guide you in your purchase.