Camera for bird and plant pictures (1 Viewer)

Hello,

I need a camera for bird pictures and detailed plant pictures ( emphasis orchids and ferns ).
Lots of pictures ( have only camcorder and anlaog camera Canon EOS 300 with two zooms 18 - 75, 75 - 300 ) I made in rainforests.
Use tripod often is not possible, because the birds do not wait.
Especially plants on ground ( like small ferns ) in rainforest, demand making pictures under very hard light conditions.
High moisture and heavy rainfall are other hard conditions.

For plants like ferns I need detailed pictures, where small parts like spores clearly visible.

Which camera is recommended for excellent amateur pictures ?
Which objectivs are needed ?
( it said cameras like Nikon D 80, need high level objectivs )


Best regards
Dieter

albatross02 said:

Especially plants on ground ( like small ferns ) in rainforest, demand making pictures under very hard light conditions.
High moisture and heavy rainfall are other hard conditions.

For plants like ferns I need detailed pictures, where small parts like spores clearly visible.

Click to expand...

For small detailed things like that you'd need a macro lens, and probably a ring-light style lighting system for it. Tripod, as well. Especially for something tiny and shiny like filmy fern and the like. I've hardly attempted filmy ferns because they're just too difficult to get a clear photo of with my regular kit lens and built-in flash.

Brooks
http://www.pbase.com/bkrownd

albatross02 said:

demand making pictures under very hard light conditions.
High moisture and heavy rainfall are other hard conditions.

Click to expand...

This narrows it down a lot you'll need a body that is environmentally sealed or get a good and usable waterproof cover. harsh conditions probably mean a pro end camera in the recent reviews you won't get much better than a D3 for poor light low noise photography and before I get yelled at I'm sure that theres a Canon body close behind the D3.......

I use my D80 in exactly the conditions described. I carry it around in a gallon ziplock bag, open end and lens pointed down. It gets water on it, gets dropped on the rocks, etc, but has survived so far. It'll probably get replaced before it dies, anyhow - I don't worry much about it. My kit lens did get fungus due to the zoom action sucking in moisture and dust, and I expect my other zoom lenses will all eventually get fungus as well since they all experience the same conditions. (Welcome to the tropics.) Well, the kit lens is fairly disposable too, because I really need a lens with VR/OS/IS for good plant photos in low light, weird camera angles and unstable footing in the wilderness. (I would love to find a suitable lens that doesn't suck in air as it zooms.)

The 18-135mm kit lens is a pretty good range for plants, and it's light and small. The zoom range is useful because sometimes you need to zoom way up into a tree to photo its leaves, flowers, or fruit, or catch an epiphyte up there. Sometimes you can't get very close to something due to the terrain, or without disturbing fragile plants, and need the zoom then as well. I'm wondering if Sigma's new 18-125 OS will be a good replacement for it. Otherwise I may get the 18-200 VR when I get the D300 or D80's replacement this year, but that might be a bit too heavy and bulky? I have the Sigma 10-20mm for wide angles. Good for big plants close up - sometimes the understory doesn't allow unobscured photos from a few feet back. Obviously it's wonderful for wide-angle habitat photos, and photos that capture the kind of view of an area like you'd get in person. I have the 80-400 VR for birds, but I really want a VR 300mm prime and teleconverter. The 80-400 VR is a bit fragile for wilderness work, and it always sucks in dust - it'll eventually get fungus. A prime wouldn't have those problems, but Nikon is frustratingly tardy in putting VR into their 300mm f/4.

I'd think that the answer to bad light conditions is better lighting sources, not a $5000 body. Also, I wouldn't take any camera or lens into these conditions if I'd feel really bad or financially injured if it died. I slip or fall a lot in the forest and on the lava fields, and I've dropped the camera numerous times. Stuff happens, and I've mentally budgeted the inevitable breakage.

Nikon D...

Hello,

thank You for all informations.

Lots of digital pictures I took with camcorder.
The movies are very good because 3CCD and 3 x 1 Megapixel.
But the pictures only 1 Megapixel.
In bad light condition the camcorder takes much better pictures than a cheap compact camera ( e.g. for 200 - 400 US$ ).

This camcorder I have used 4 x in New Caledonia.

Only once I had problem in Westland NP in New Zealand.
The tape did not work for ~2 h. But I took still pictures.
This was 3 years ago. The camcorder still working fine.

So are 2 options:
1. new camcorder with 6 Megapixel pictures
2. high level camera

I think high level camera makes much better pictures than camcorder ?



Best regards
Dieter

It depends on how much money you want to spend. If you want to minimise the cost, buy a Canon body & use your 70-300, then buy a macro lens. While you can buy an expensive ring flash, you can also get good results with a single, small flash on an extension cable (and a macro flash bracket for a bit more money).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v345/keith1200rs/D50/DSC_2651crop.jpg?t=1211974417

Keith.

As much as I like Nikon, I agree that you already own Canon glass. Also here's another advantage. The Canon 40D is a wonderful semi-pro magnesium body that has fairly good weather proofing. It's considered a great low light, high ISO performer; maybe not quite up to the D3 standards but pretty much up to the D300 standards which is darn good.

The big thing about the Canon 40D right now is that it's a bargain. In the US the 40D can be had for only a little over $900 usd. This was only released last August and it's been $1300 until this month. That is an extremely good deal right now. I'd get it and not look back. This is one of the top three or four DSLRs made, IMO.

I agree with Craig on the 40D, and it's hard not to disagree with Steve on the D3 (wonderful bit of kit), but if you are just taking plant and flower images, for final image detail, then why not look at Canon's 5D, its half the cost of the D3 and reducing.