Advice on DSLR and lens for wildlife photography (1 Viewer)

I know that there has been alot of threads on this subject but I am looking to make the transition from digital compact to DSLR. I am currently using a Fuji Finepix S5000 with a Olympus TCON17 (x1.7) for bird/longer distance photography and a Raynox 250 macro lens for insect/close up work.

This has been a great setup and I have achieved some great photos, but I am looking for a DSLR which focuses quicker, has faster continous shooting and a lens which will give me greater distance. Also I need to have a good macro lens to be used with the camera.

It seems that the Nikon D70 and Canon 350D are popular choices, but what lens would I need?

Also does anyone know if either of these cameras can be used for digiscoping?

Thanks for any advice

Mark

Mark,
Both are good cameras and you will likely need at least 2 lenses. One for reach (telephoto) and one for macro.

Regarding digiscoping with a Dslr, my question would be why? I mean if you can get a nice long lens with a fairly fast aperture, fairly inexpensively. Why would you want to go through the hassle, and put up with the limitations, of digiscoping?


Steve

Both of the cameras you've mentioned are being superseded by newer models, D80 and 400D, so be aware of the reports on these as they become more widely available (and look out for bargains on the older models). You'll get something like 3 frames per second with either model for as many shots as you're liable to need in most situations, providing you're using JPEG rather than RAW.

Budget will dictate the kind of lens that you'll get - having to buy both camera and a few lenses all at once is a real problem as you'll no doubt have to make compromises somewhere along the way (unless you're wealthy!)

You'll need at least a 400mm lens for birds, the starting point for many is the Sigma 135-400mm zoom lens and the sky's the limit beyond that!

Any macro lens from the either camera maker or Sigma and Tamron will be good

SMC2002 said:

Regarding digiscoping with a Dslr, my question would be why? I mean if you can get a nice long lens with a fairly fast aperture, fairly inexpensively. Why would you want to go through the hassle, and put up with the limitations, of digiscoping?

Steve

Click to expand...

I agree that digiscoping is a real hassle, but one common reason for using it (as opposed to a large telephoto lens), is that you can get MUCH higher magnification. With digiscoping you can get for example 48x or higher mag.

Another reason - most birders already have a scope. Therefore there isn't much expensive to trying digiscoping (as opposed to going out and buying a 600mm lens for say $3000).

RAH said:

I agree that digiscoping is a real hassle, but one common reason for using it (as opposed to a large telephoto lens), is that you can get MUCH higher magnification. With digiscoping you can get for example 48x or higher mag.

Another reason - most birders already have a scope. Therefore there isn't much expensive to trying digiscoping (as opposed to going out and buying a 600mm lens for say $3000).

Click to expand...

I see your point RAH I was thinking more along the lines of a $600 170-500 zoom. Plus, most of the digiscope shots I have seen are of static subjects. Pretty limiting, IMO.

I am probably off-base here. I have never digiscoped, so what do I know?......LOL

Steve

Long Reach/Fair-Good IQ w/dSLR = $$$$

Mark-
I've looked for a long time and have found that one needs to understand that achieving good IQ at distance w/a dSLR will require a lot of fairly expensive glass. My main interest is of Raptors which means usually being at a fair distance to the subject. This also means needing >400mm of apparent focal length.

Thus far, I've gone to a dual camera approach using my Pany FZ30 w/an Oly TCON17 for the long distance Raptor imaging and my D50 dSLR for those times I'm in close and other imaging circumstances for the desired attributes the dSLR affords.

Its been my experience that the FZ30 + TCON17 + its Extended Apparent Zoom gives me better reach/IQ than my kittie Lens on my D50 when I'm past 300MM EQ.

If budget constraints are at play, you may want to consider a Pany FZ30 or the new FZ50.

This is a 100% crop of a FZ30 image at ~900mm EQ using the FZ30 + 5MP-EZ + Oly TCON17 of a Peregrine Falcon about 200+ yards out...
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/Telecorder/FZ30 Morro Bay 06-2006/Perigrin-in-flight-371.jpg

You'd probably need a 400mm + 1.4TC on a Nikon D50 dSLR (~840mm EQ) to equal the reach which, from what I've determined thus far, is about a $700 investment in just the lens for comparable reach/IQ. I paid $470 for my FZ30 and $90 for the Oly TCON17...

I'm still looking to pick up a good quality 400mm prime + 1.4 TC for my D50 but its been hard to find any at a moderate price, thus far...

Between the 350D and D70, I'd give the nod to the 350D, on the basis of noticeably better image quality (higher resolution and lower noise at high ISO). Both have dim viewfinders. The Nikon feels better built, but I doubt it is any more durable. But, the D70 is getting on a bit and maybe the D50 would be a better choice: same dim viewfinder, better image quality and cheaper. Or move up to the D80 which is by all accounts a marvelous little camera with a viewfinder that outclassses the 340D, 400D, D70 and D50.

However, it is probably important for you to handle each camera to make sure like the look and feel

As for lenses, sorry I shoot fungi, not birds, so I cannot advise.

The 350D is a great little cam,takes superb shots ,is very light ,and it would be ideal to save money ,buying this cam and spending the surplus buying a good lens.