-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
camera dilemma! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter salty
- Start date
salty
geordie birder
christineredgate said:
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.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
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...
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...
Last edited:
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
OK - one more time..!salty said:
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
geordie birder
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 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
Member
salty said:
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
Last edited:
Adey Baker
Member
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
Watch the birdie...
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...
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
Well-known member
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!
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
Watch the birdie...
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.
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
Well-known member
Keith Reeder said:
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
Watch the birdie...
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?
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
Well-known member
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
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
greypoint
Well-known member
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!
The essence of capturing birds in flight is practice and whatever you get you may be disappointed at first!
salty
geordie birder
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.
(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
Watch the birdie...
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...
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...
Similar threads
