is this camera any good??

[chanandler04]

Hello,

I'm just starting out with the photography but have a great interest in butterflies and am starting a phd on them in october. Can people recommend a good camera for less than £600 (if possible) my budget could stretch to £800.

While searching i found this sigma

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product ... ku=1017059

which has good pixels at 14.1 but only has 5 points of autofocus (using TTL), 1/4000 shutter speed and 2 FPS. Is this too slow to be good for butterflies??

And help would be greatly appreciated as i am currently working with a fujifilm finepix A900 which requires me to be practically nudging the butterfly to achieve a decent photo.

Thanks Stu

[Gruditch]

Hi Stu,

Check out this thread
http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/phpBB2/v ... f=7&t=1754

Gruditch

[chanandler04]

Thanks

[eccles]

Personally, I would steer clear of the Sigma. Those 14.1 megapixels are acually calculated by multiplying the photosites by three since each photosite can handle 3 colours. In other words it's only a 4.7 megapixel camera. Bayer type sensors as used in regular cameras use one colour per photosite then interpolates adjacent ones. The manufacturers have got so good at this that although the Sigma is better than a regular 4.7 MP, it isn't as good as a 14.1 MP. Also, you might think that because Sigma make a lot of lenses for other manufacturers you'd easily be able to get them for their own. Trawl a few camera websites to see how wrong that assumption is.

The big five are Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax and Olympus, approximately in that order of popularity. I swear by my Sony A700 which I think is a fabulous high end amateur camera. Others here prefer mainly Canon or Nikon. I have a Sigma 105mm EX macro lens, but for butterflies I've increasingly been leaving it at home, using instead an old 70-210 F4 zoom with a Canon achromat close up lens stuck on the front. Whip off the c/u lens and it's good for dragonflies as it'll focus quite close.

[Markulous]

I've got the SD10 (10MP/3.4MP), the previous Sigma to the SD14, and I can definitely say that it's produced my best ever macros (teamed up with the 105mm lens) - my current Canon 350D (8MP) and 105mm/150mm macro lenses don't come close. But you do have to work at get the best out of the camera (much more so than the Canon) and it doesn't always reliably produce a useable shot. Which is why I've now defected to Canon - with the increase in commissions I need a dependable camera rather than great output

So, I wouldn't rule out a Sigma but I rarely recommend it - it all depends how much work you're prepared to put into it! Artistically, I've yet to find anything to touch it!

[cheddar-caveman]

When I went digital I went from Minolta to the Canon 350D and have had excellent results over the past couple of years from it. I recently upgraded to the Canon 40D and it is brilliant! For your money you might want to look at the new Canon 450D, body only, and then get a good lense. All my wildlife stuff is shot using a 300mm f4 prime lense with IS which I just love but it did cost! Had to sell a whole lot of stuff to buy it! For general photography I have a Canon 27-105mm f4.

Please feel free to look at a few of my pics here. Each one says what it was shot with.

http://www.ephotozine.com/u11645

[Rogerdodge]

My advice?
Canon 450D body - £440
Sigma 150 Macro - £400
Mnfrotto 679B Monopod - £30
Manfrotto Monopod Head 234 RC - £25
Total Less than £900.
The basis for some great photography.
E-Bay or other sites could get you this lot even cheaper.
Good luck.
Roger Harding

[eccles]

Check out the cashback offers on Canon 40D and Sony A700. Also have a play with the Sony A350. Noise on the latter at iso1600 may be off a little compared to the 450D but it's got in-body image stabilisation and arguably the best live-view system anywhere.