• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

camera dilemma! (1 Viewer)

Keith Reeder said:
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Keith Reeder said:
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?
 
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].
 
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.
 
Keith Reeder said:
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".http://www.brsd.ab.ca/nnorway/carrweb/oct_2005/oct2web/oct2 119.jpg

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.
 
salty said:
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.
 
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).
 
Keith Reeder said:
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
 
Last edited:
salty said:
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.
 
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.
 
salty said:
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
 
rezMole said:
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.

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

Well said:
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.
 
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
 
pete schofield said:
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.
 
salty said:
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.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top