If you were to buy a Canon DSLR on an extreme budget... (1 Viewer)

Also the Nikon D7200, which gets top low light scores among APS-C cameras, is only c. 630g. There's a lightweight 300mm prime lens for it, which can get you 600mm equivalent reach when set to crop mode,

Click to expand...

Just remember that if you use crop mode on a Nikon DX, you are essentially using a sensor that is the same size (surface area) as the mft sensors.

Niels

njlarsen said:

Just remember that if you use crop mode on a Nikon DX, you are essentially using a sensor that is the same size (surface area) as the mft sensors.

Niels

Click to expand...

You mean same size as the "older" mft sensors, i.e. 16mp. But what I'd like to know is whether the low light advantage vs. mft is still there, to the same extent, in the Nikon's crop mode.

Jim M. said:

You mean same size as the "older" mft sensors, i.e. 16mp. But what I'd like to know is whether the low light advantage vs. mft is still there, to the same extent, in the Nikon's crop mode.

Click to expand...

A DX sensor in 1.3x crop mode and a MFT sensor (with the same MP count) will perform similar in low light, since the light gathering sensor area will be about the same. But perhaps the Nikon/Sony sensor used in D7200 have a slight edge in pure per pixel performance. Dynamic range for example seem to be a bit better for the D7200 than most cameras.

Jim M. said:

You mean same size as the "older" mft sensors, i.e. 16mp. But what I'd like to know is whether the low light advantage vs. mft is still there, to the same extent, in the Nikon's crop mode.

Click to expand...

I actually meant in numbers of mm-squared, rather than in pixel numbers. The next question becomes what the per pixel performance is.

I think what I was really trying to say is that common wisdom is that a Nikon APS-C is larger in surface area and therefore should have a better noise profile - however, if you use the 1.3x crop mode, that difference does not anymore exist.

There could still be minor differences in per pixel performance, as stated by Vespobuteo

Niels

njlarsen said:

I think what I was really trying to say is that common wisdom is that a Nikon APS-C is larger in surface area and therefore should have a better noise profile - however, if you use the 1.3x crop mode, that difference does not anymore exist.

There could still be minor differences in per pixel performance, as stated by Vespobuteo

Click to expand...

I don't but that theory. There are MAJOR differences in how sensors of the same size and pixel count handle low light and how much noise they produce. My old panny G3 is pretty much blown away by my EM-1 on that score, and the Nikon D7200 bests many other APS-C sensors for class-leading performance.

the Canon 400mm/f5.6 is a classic lens among birders around here,
for walk around purpose it's quite light and handy, about 1200 grams,
no IS, but for moving birds you need fast shutter speeds anyway,
could be found used to a reasonable price,
7D MkII or 70D would be a nice combo.
but if not tied to Canon,
there are a lot of alternatives coming up this year it seems,
but if they will work well for bird photography
I just can't say, yet,
MFT seem handy to me, weight is important,
personally I don't want to lug around any 5-600mm lenses any more (they are sold, as well as my D800)
IQ wise, I suspect that Fujifilm could be the best compromise, though the 100-400mm zoom is quite large and heavy,
on my potential list of lighter equipment I haven't ruled out any make yet,
will be an interesting spring I think.

Jim M. said:

I don't but that theory. There are MAJOR differences in how sensors of the same size and pixel count handle low light and how much noise they produce. My old panny G3 is pretty much blown away by my EM-1 on that score, and the Nikon D7200 bests many other APS-C sensors for class-leading performance.

Click to expand...

there are differences in sensors, micro lenses, color filter arrays, as well as how the data is read from the sensors, noise reduction etc.
And they get better for every generation.

Most MFT cameras is probably better today than what was considered pro-grade equipment some years ago.

Sorry just came across this forum. Having owned a ton of cameras, I would choose a recent vintage Canon or Nikon DSLR. I have a bunch of both. Canon, I love that I can use almost any lens made in the last 10 yrs or so. Real deals on Ebay for these lenses, I know I have bought a ton. LOL. But I prefer Nikon. Starting with the D90 ( which is still selling for pretty high prices even though it's 12 mp. I would shoot for either say a Canon t2i or a Nikon D3100 or Nikon D90. The cut off for using older cheaper lenses with the Nikon is the D90 has a motor in the body so you can use older lenses ie cheaper. The D series ie D3000, D5000, D7000 need a lens with the motor in the lenses which is a bit more pricey You can take great photos with either one and can set them to full auto until you decide to learn more details.

Rapala said:

[...] If you do rethink this, KEH is one of the best online used camera gear sites, and my "Bargain" grade T4i came with only a scuff over the model name. Also, remember that with a Canon DSLR you get a 1.6x crop factor, so that a 300mm lens turns out to be a 480mm equivalent. Don't forget to look at Third-Party lenses too which can, in some cases, be superior to their name brand equivalents. One to look into is the Tamron 70-300 (this one), which I've seen many good photos taken with. Hope I didn't confuse you too much!

Click to expand...

By sheer coincidence, I own this combo: Canon Rebel T4i (= 650D in Europe), Tamron 70-300mm and Kenko TC 1.4x. There are situations when this combo easily beats my SX50, quality-wise. For example a Dipper flying through a waterfall, the SX50 here suffered from its limited "speed", the photos of the dslr were soo much better. On the other side, in most normal situations the birds are simply too small with this dslr combo. That was the main reason why in the last 3.5 years I have almost exclusively used the SX50. In most respects the SX50 and the OP's SX60 are very similar, and for people who prefer the birds filling the viewfinder, the Tamron 70-300 cannot be the best choice.

If we talk "budget" and allow buying second-hand, the Canon 4ti (650D) + Kenko 1.4x + Tamron 150-600 would cost about Euro 1000. After removing the collar of the Tamron, the combo weights about 2.4 kg and its "reach" would be 1344 mm, similar to the SX60.

I've heard much praise for the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L lens (Vespobuteo's advice), it can also be combined with a Kenko 1.4x (or maybe a 2.0x?) and weighs 500g less. Surely a factor for extended walks. - In both cases it is an expensive pleasure, even more so if you prefer to buy new or want a Micro Four Thirds.

Maybe "silent" should be a factor, too - does this matter to you, CalvinFold? My 650D is loud, a majority of the "close" birds will flee immediately when I start shooting. I've met someone in a birding reservation carrying a 5d3 + Tamron 150-600, and he proudly demonstrated the "silent mode" which this camera has. Indeed, Canon's "silent mode" is a huge improvement: the noise is of a lower frequency, and I guess 70% of the closer birds would "remain". Of course, the Canon 5d3 costs Euro 2.300 or so, and the new 7d2 is still at Euro 1.300. Quite a difference to the 650D (about Euro 300, used).

I don't know much about MFTs; Panasonic's G7 is said to have a silent mode.

Edit: Sample photos to prove the superiority of a DSLR over the SX50 when it comes to the (admittedly very special) situation of a dipper nesting behind a waterfall.

The first photo (hardly cropped, edited in Photoshop) was taken with the SX50 in "high speed burst mode", since I was struggling to get these fast-flying birds into focus with TV mode. Burst mode = only 1/1000 sec, so maybe I should have tried TV mode with 1/1600 sec, no TC. But even in burst I needed luck to hit the bird...

The second photo (two versions: RAW via DPP / edited in Photoshop) was taken with the combo Canon 450D, Kenko 1.5x, Tamron 70-300. [So it wasn't my 650D, but the 650D is just a little better in some respects.] It was obviously easier to find the bird, because the photographed area is larger. In this second case I used 1/2500 sec in TV mode, the 450D can go up to 1/4000 sec if necessary.

In both cases (SX50 or DSLR), a more experienced photographer might achieve better results. But my point was simply a comparison of the two set-ups from exactly the same distance, light, etc.

Soon I stopped my attempts with the SX50 and shot only with the DSLR at this special occasion. Here are another five. Some heavy cropping, blur and "noise", but I still found it impressive. No doubt that a better lens (instead of my Tamron 70-300) would have achieved even better results.

My purchase would rather be the more flexible Tamron 150-600 (with image stabilisation) than the Canon 400mm. But it is a difficult decision. How often do you meet a dipper flying through a waterfall?

I've considered to replace my relatively inexpensive Tamron 70-300mm with a better lens. One of the problems of the Tamron is "Bokeh" - the background in the photo below would require major PP efforts to look acceptable. The common advice for someone like me, who prefers to walk around, would be the Canon EF 400 mm 1:5.6 L prime (at a focal length equivalent of 896mm) that costs Euro 700+ (used). My dipper test gave me an idea that such a lens might be fun.

Or I could buy, used, for a similar price, a Nikon V2 with the 1Nikkor 70-300 lens. It is said to be great for BIF, and a focal length equivalent of 810mm. Not so great in low light though.

Decisions, decisions. And 700-800 Euro isn't exactly a "budget" solution...

I have only rather skimmed this thread so may get things a bit wrong but I have both Canon gear and Olympus mft. A few random thoughts.
One downside to all the present mft is poor C-AF even with the EM-1 so if BIF is your thing forget mft. The Panasonic 100-300 is a bit soft. Start adding the new Panasonic 100-400 rather puts the price up past what I would call budget and as it has only just become available there will be nothing on the second hand market.
For me, sticking to Canon, and keeping to a reasonable budget I would look at a 7D and the 400L. The lens is compatible with a teleconverter but with the 7D only manual focus. No IS of course but many with the lens do not seem to be bothered by that. The 7D has good C-AF for BIF, very sharp lens, reasonably light and comparitively cheap.

HermitIbis said:

Maybe "silent" should be a factor, too - does this matter to you, CalvinFold?

Click to expand...

To some degree, I suppose it does.

I've yet to have a bird scared by the noise of my SX60 or the intensity of the 430EX II flash.

But we have noticed some birds get uncomfortable with the shutter slap from my girlfriend's D700. At least we're pretty sure it's the shutter slap. She has a 70-300mm NIKKOR lens but to my ears it is very quiet, nearly silent (given the ambient urban noise), so we just assume the shutter slap, especially when shooting bursts.

It's ironic, but all this thread has done so far is make me decide to keep and be happy with the SX60. A few Photoshop plugins was a good investment for improving my photos though, glad I did that. :t:

Now if I could leave my SX60 in a romantic spot with my girlfriend's RX100 IV so they'd have a kid...a superzoom with a larger sensor at less than $1000...that might be a better candidate (as awful as that is to hear to you folks). ||

Well there are some nice new bridge cameras coming out now with 1" sensors and 600mm equivelent zoom lenses so by next year they may well be available under your $1,000 secondhand.

miketoll said:

Well there are some nice new bridge cameras coming out now with 1" sensors and 600mm equivelent zoom lenses so by next year they may well be available under your $1,000 secondhand.

Click to expand...

Yeah saw one of those, but I need the 1200+ equivalent zoom. Can't even count the number of times being able to reach comfortably out to 50m was a good thing and how often I really needed more like 75-100m. :eek!:

Yes, I am aware 600mm plus a bigger sensor opens-up the idea of crop-to-zoom, but it's still has not been quite the same as actual zoom.

But let's see where it leads though, it's promising. Once they come out and get kicked-around by folks, and I hear good things about effective reach beyond 50m, then I will be convinced.

There are days where I miss digiscoping. ||

P.S.: Does anyone have a list of these new 1" sensor cameras? I lost the link I had at one point, and really should keep an eye on them.

Here ya go Nikon DL24-500
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-dl24-500/nikon-dl24-500A.HTM
A bit short at the long end though.