Hi Antonym,
I must say, I have very much enjoyed following this post the past few days. The advice you have been given is sound. However, I do know that when I first thought about upgrading to SLR from compact, it was very difficult decision to make. I personally used a Fuji 602, then my last compact ,a Nikon 8800....this camera had good close focus, an image stabiliser, and for extreme close-ups, I used a binocular lense reversed...it was all stone age, but it did the job.
After upgrading to SLR, the biggest difference , the most immediate difference,was the speed and accuracy, fantastic...although it did take me a full year to realy get to grips with the new system. It was all about technique, the way I used a compact, it did not realy get the same results, what I am saying is, I had to rethink the way I used a camera.
I now have a Canon 450D, Sigma 105mm lense, I am happy with it, very happy,however, on hindsight, I would probably have been better off with the 150mm. Its all about working distance, as you know.
I almost bought the Sony A350, my reason for not doing so was its history and support in lenses...Canon have a vast number of compatibles, and I figured that would be the way to go...I have not been disappointed. I still use my compact on occasion, and its strange, when I do use it , it seems alien and slow and cumbersome in comparison.
I will sum up by saying this, buying an SLR, no matter how technically advanced, wont improve your photographs. Its all about "YOUR" technique , and how you adapt that technique to the new system. It will take a while, but when you are there, you will forgetting all about your compact, and leaving it at home. Thats all for now ,and good luck, we will all look forward to seeing more of your photos here in the future....whatever system you possess.
Cheers IAC.
Lenses
Re: Lenses
- Attachments
-
- Canon 450d, Sigma 105mm, Handheld. F 4.5, 1/256 sec, ISO 100.
- IMG_0001.jpg (240.85 KiB) Viewed 1290 times
-
Tony Moore
- Posts: 810
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:37 pm
Re: Lenses
Hi IAC,
Thank you for your kind comments and encouragement. I have taken on board the various pieces of advice and will probably end up, as suggested, with a Canon and a 150 lens. I anticipate a steep learning curve with lots of disappointments!
Enough, already. Over and out,
Tony Moore.
Thank you for your kind comments and encouragement. I have taken on board the various pieces of advice and will probably end up, as suggested, with a Canon and a 150 lens. I anticipate a steep learning curve with lots of disappointments!
Enough, already. Over and out,
Tony Moore.
Re: Lenses
"Also, is there any advantage to be gained from a 100mm macro over a 50mm macro apart from not having to get so close to the subject? Can one hold a camera with a 100mm macro lens without a pod and avoid ANY camera shake? I would be very grateful for any advice."
A 50mm macro is ideal for plants and fungi, but not insects as the working distance is too short. A 100mm lens is better, and in fact ideal if you also use flash. For wary insects, a 200mm lens is better, but even then it is not always easy. I tried to stalk a scarce chaser dragonfly today with my 200mm micro lens, and failed as I could not get close enough.
In my experience a 200mm micro lens (or an equivalent) is ideal but it is expensive, big and heavy, and requires a good tripod and head, and that means a lot of extra money needs to be spent. Another advantage is that the long lenses have a tripod collar, which allows you to rotate the lens, and this helps in composition, as you can try portrait and landscape formats at ease. By all accounts the independent macro lenses are very good. The Sigma 180mm F3.5 macro looks well made, and I was impressed when I handled one. The older Nikon 200mm F4 AIS is also an excellent lens, and lighter and smaller than others.
You can also use a long lens. I sometimes use a Sigma 400mm F5.6 Apo macro lens which cost about £200 on ebay. It was the only way I could get photos of Brilliant Emerald and Hairy dragonflies. But beware that Sigma lenses in Canon mount often have compatibility issues. Mine is Nikon and works fine on a D200.
Regarding ball heads, a friend recently bought a Redsnapper ball head for £50, for use with his Sigma 180mm F3.5 macro lens, and he says the head is excellent. I have not seen it so cannot comment. My ball head cost nearly £300. You can also use tilt and pan heads, but I know nowt about 'em, so I'll not comment.
As for brands and cameras, well my opinion is that what matter most is technique and knowledge, plus a good tripod and head. The camera is secondary, though I would say that mirror lock up is essential. Canon and Nikon have the widest range of lenses and accessories, and in the UK they are the easiest to obtain. You also need patience, hard work and a lot of luck, such as coming across a nice Peacock on a Burdock leaf:
A 50mm macro is ideal for plants and fungi, but not insects as the working distance is too short. A 100mm lens is better, and in fact ideal if you also use flash. For wary insects, a 200mm lens is better, but even then it is not always easy. I tried to stalk a scarce chaser dragonfly today with my 200mm micro lens, and failed as I could not get close enough.
In my experience a 200mm micro lens (or an equivalent) is ideal but it is expensive, big and heavy, and requires a good tripod and head, and that means a lot of extra money needs to be spent. Another advantage is that the long lenses have a tripod collar, which allows you to rotate the lens, and this helps in composition, as you can try portrait and landscape formats at ease. By all accounts the independent macro lenses are very good. The Sigma 180mm F3.5 macro looks well made, and I was impressed when I handled one. The older Nikon 200mm F4 AIS is also an excellent lens, and lighter and smaller than others.
You can also use a long lens. I sometimes use a Sigma 400mm F5.6 Apo macro lens which cost about £200 on ebay. It was the only way I could get photos of Brilliant Emerald and Hairy dragonflies. But beware that Sigma lenses in Canon mount often have compatibility issues. Mine is Nikon and works fine on a D200.
Regarding ball heads, a friend recently bought a Redsnapper ball head for £50, for use with his Sigma 180mm F3.5 macro lens, and he says the head is excellent. I have not seen it so cannot comment. My ball head cost nearly £300. You can also use tilt and pan heads, but I know nowt about 'em, so I'll not comment.
As for brands and cameras, well my opinion is that what matter most is technique and knowledge, plus a good tripod and head. The camera is secondary, though I would say that mirror lock up is essential. Canon and Nikon have the widest range of lenses and accessories, and in the UK they are the easiest to obtain. You also need patience, hard work and a lot of luck, such as coming across a nice Peacock on a Burdock leaf:
-
Tony Moore
- Posts: 810
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:37 pm
Re: Lenses
Thanks Lief, I thought my Peacock was pretty good - we live and learn.
AM.
Re: Lenses
"I thought my Peacock was pretty good"
It is pretty good, especially with a little Smart USM applied which really works wonders. It's always nice to get some colour such as Rag Wort and thistle.
It is pretty good, especially with a little Smart USM applied which really works wonders. It's always nice to get some colour such as Rag Wort and thistle.
-
Tony Moore
- Posts: 810
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:37 pm
Re: Lenses
What's a little smart USM? Or even a large slightly dopey one? The picture is exactly as it came from my old Sony Cybershot to Picassa (apart from a reduction to have it accepted on the forum).
A confused Tone.
A confused Tone.
Re: Lenses
USM is unsharp mask, which is gobbledegook talk for sharpening. Sharpening is an edge effect that accentuates detail in a photo. Used sensibly it can improve the appearance of detail in a photo. Used wrongly, it can destroy it. Photo programs like Photoshop will have a basic sharpening tool, which can often be enough to enhance a photo, but USM is a bit more controllable with several parameters that you can play with to get the best apparent sharpness with the least amount of sharpening artifacts that can mess up a photo. Most cameras, including DSLRs, apply sharpening in varying degrees in camera to their Jpeg output. It's academic if you shoot raw as you can apply whatever sharpening you want with raw images. And believe me, taking the trouble to process a raw image instead of jpeg is well worth the effort.
Incidently, Antonym, don't jump the way of the crowd here. The best advice is to listen to the arguments and go and try out several models. Personally, I would never consider using a camera without image stabilisation. Most of those who dismiss it have never tried it.
Two stops of improved sharpness doesn't sound a lot. How about changing 1/500 second exposure to 1/125 and still getting the same sharpness? And the A350 live view a gimmic? Not a bit of it. It is a gimmic with other manufacturer's systems which are flawed, but Sony's implementation is the best of the lot, and is the closest yet that a DSLR has approached the simplicity of a compact. But that is just my opinion. I admit I am biased, but aren't we all?
But I don't think any UKB members would disagree with me in saying that the best way to get brilliant shots of butterflies is through effort and technique.
Look at a photo of a butterfly with dew on it. It says to me that the photographer has got up at dawn, found the butterfly, set up his/her tripod and waited for the light to take that shot. THAT is what makes prize winning photos, whether it's butterflies or birds or whatever, the sheer effort in knowing your subject and working at it. I don't get up at dawn, but I do traipse around wildlife sites looking for shots, getting bitten by horseflies and scraped by bramble and thistle. Sometimes I go home with hardly anything, other times I get a set that I'm proud of.
Recently I went searching for white letter hairstreak. The site that these had been seen last year was Red Lodge Wood in Wiltshire. This year, the elm tree where they'd been seen was sick, with yellow leaves and bare branches. Dutch elm disease had got it. There were signs of leaf nibbling so hopefully the larvae managed to reach adulthood and find other elms in the wood. I was disappointed, but white admirals were also present in the wood, and I got several shots of this beautiful butterfly. You lose some, and you win some but the wins are special. Just to watch a woodland butterfly that most people have never seen is worth its weight in gold even if you don't get a photo.
Incidently, Antonym, don't jump the way of the crowd here. The best advice is to listen to the arguments and go and try out several models. Personally, I would never consider using a camera without image stabilisation. Most of those who dismiss it have never tried it.
Two stops of improved sharpness doesn't sound a lot. How about changing 1/500 second exposure to 1/125 and still getting the same sharpness? And the A350 live view a gimmic? Not a bit of it. It is a gimmic with other manufacturer's systems which are flawed, but Sony's implementation is the best of the lot, and is the closest yet that a DSLR has approached the simplicity of a compact. But that is just my opinion. I admit I am biased, but aren't we all?
But I don't think any UKB members would disagree with me in saying that the best way to get brilliant shots of butterflies is through effort and technique.
Look at a photo of a butterfly with dew on it. It says to me that the photographer has got up at dawn, found the butterfly, set up his/her tripod and waited for the light to take that shot. THAT is what makes prize winning photos, whether it's butterflies or birds or whatever, the sheer effort in knowing your subject and working at it. I don't get up at dawn, but I do traipse around wildlife sites looking for shots, getting bitten by horseflies and scraped by bramble and thistle. Sometimes I go home with hardly anything, other times I get a set that I'm proud of.
Recently I went searching for white letter hairstreak. The site that these had been seen last year was Red Lodge Wood in Wiltshire. This year, the elm tree where they'd been seen was sick, with yellow leaves and bare branches. Dutch elm disease had got it. There were signs of leaf nibbling so hopefully the larvae managed to reach adulthood and find other elms in the wood. I was disappointed, but white admirals were also present in the wood, and I got several shots of this beautiful butterfly. You lose some, and you win some but the wins are special. Just to watch a woodland butterfly that most people have never seen is worth its weight in gold even if you don't get a photo.
-
Tony Moore
- Posts: 810
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:37 pm
Re: Lenses
Hi Eccles,
Many thanks for your informative and considered reply. You are certainly right about 'what you put in....' Last year I spent an entire day on Witherslack watching grey clouds scud across the sky and seeing absoutely nothing. Eventually, at about 4.15, a tiny break occured exactly where the sun was. Within a minute, a perfect HBF (my hoped for quarry) appeared and sat on a small spruce with its wings closed, about 4 ft from the ground. I got a couple of quick shots and then it opened its wings and posed perfectly for an upper wing shot before vanishing with the sun. Quite miraculous! I walked the two miles back to the car about two feet off the ground.
Antonym.
Many thanks for your informative and considered reply. You are certainly right about 'what you put in....' Last year I spent an entire day on Witherslack watching grey clouds scud across the sky and seeing absoutely nothing. Eventually, at about 4.15, a tiny break occured exactly where the sun was. Within a minute, a perfect HBF (my hoped for quarry) appeared and sat on a small spruce with its wings closed, about 4 ft from the ground. I got a couple of quick shots and then it opened its wings and posed perfectly for an upper wing shot before vanishing with the sun. Quite miraculous! I walked the two miles back to the car about two feet off the ground.
Antonym.
-
Malcolm Farrow
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 9:14 pm
- Location: Suffolk
- Contact:
Re: Lenses
While there are a lot of advocates of Canon gear on this forum, and the system is undeniably excellent, I strongly recommend you visit a shop where you can try out some of the rival manufacturers, even if you plan to buy online. Simply weighing up the various technical pros and cons will get you so far, but if the camera doesn't feel right, or if the way it works doesn't suit your particular mind-set, you'll not get the best from it. Success has a lot to do with good field technique and being able to use your gear instinctively, without having to think about it - so having a camera you really get on well with is more important than the number of mega-pixels it offers, or how much the manufacturer spends on advertising.
If you want to travel reasonably light, be as mobile as possible, and improve significantly on your compact, the best bet is a compact DSLR with a 90-105mm range macro lens and a vibration reduction system (either in-lens or in-camera). That way you don't need any kind of additional support, you'll have a smaller, lighter lens and camera and a set-up capable of superb results. I can't comment any of the cameras with vibration reduction built in, but the Nikon 105mm VR AFS macro lens that I use could have been purpose-made for hand-held insect photography and the latest Nikon DSLRs are at least a match for the equivalent cameras in rival ranges. While it's undeniably very expensive, the Nikon D300 is an outstanding camera and a perfect match for the 105mm VR lens. I wouldn't recommend using the 'live view' function, but the viewfinder of most DSLRs is so good, you probably won't want to anyway. Close up accessories are available if you want to magnify larger than life size.
Hope this helps. Attached is my favourite image of the year so far, taken with the above set up. You can see more images on my website along with an insect photography FAQ that may be of interest.
Best wishes
Malc
If you want to travel reasonably light, be as mobile as possible, and improve significantly on your compact, the best bet is a compact DSLR with a 90-105mm range macro lens and a vibration reduction system (either in-lens or in-camera). That way you don't need any kind of additional support, you'll have a smaller, lighter lens and camera and a set-up capable of superb results. I can't comment any of the cameras with vibration reduction built in, but the Nikon 105mm VR AFS macro lens that I use could have been purpose-made for hand-held insect photography and the latest Nikon DSLRs are at least a match for the equivalent cameras in rival ranges. While it's undeniably very expensive, the Nikon D300 is an outstanding camera and a perfect match for the 105mm VR lens. I wouldn't recommend using the 'live view' function, but the viewfinder of most DSLRs is so good, you probably won't want to anyway. Close up accessories are available if you want to magnify larger than life size.
Hope this helps. Attached is my favourite image of the year so far, taken with the above set up. You can see more images on my website along with an insect photography FAQ that may be of interest.
Best wishes
Malc
- Attachments
-
- Comma taken with Nikon D300, Nikkor 105mm VR AFS macro
- Comma_MPF1708.jpg (156.17 KiB) Viewed 1054 times
-
Tony Moore
- Posts: 810
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:37 pm
Re: Lenses
Hi Malcolm and thanks for that,
You actually describe, more or less, what I had decided on. I tried a Canon D 40 today with a 105 macro and couldn't believe the speed and simplicity.
Tony.
You actually describe, more or less, what I had decided on. I tried a Canon D 40 today with a 105 macro and couldn't believe the speed and simplicity.
Tony.
-
Rogerdodge
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:06 pm
- Location: North Devon
Re: Lenses
Antony-
You are making good choices
Roger
Do try longer - at least the 150mm.....with a 105 macro.....
You are making good choices
Roger
Cheers
Roger
Roger
Re: Lenses
It's worth mentioning that the D40 doesn't have an AF drive motor, meaning that it has to be present in the lens to give you AF operation. Whether that will actually affect you is open to conjecture however, since Nikon and other manufacturers market such lenses. Just be sure to check what is available in the likely lenses that you feel you might want in future. The low price of the camera will leave you more cash to spend on glass, which is always the longer term investment. So, if you like it, and the lenses you want are available with AF-S or AF-I mount, get it and go and take some photos. 
-
Gruditch
- Moderator & Stock Contributor
- Posts: 1689
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 3:30 pm
- Location: Hampshire
- Contact:
Re: Lenses
And don't confuse the Canon 40D, with the Nikon D40.Antonym wrote:I tried a Canon D 40 today
Gruditch
-
Tony Moore
- Posts: 810
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:37 pm
Re: Lenses
Sorry Gruditch, I'm not very good with numbers (or asterisks!). It was a Canon 400 or 450D and very nice too!
Re: Lenses
Heh, I saw "D40" and immediately assumed Nikon, or did you change the make in your post when I wasn't looking, Antonym?
The D40 is a different beast altogether compared to the 40D, with the former being entry level and the latter for semi-pro or serious amateur level.
The D40 is a different beast altogether compared to the 40D, with the former being entry level and the latter for semi-pro or serious amateur level.