Questions from a first time DSLR purchaser

[Andy.bn]

I am considering a first ever purchase of a Digital SLR camera, to be mainly used for butterflies, moths, dragonflies & flowers, sometimes landscapes, and would welcome any advice and guidance.
How much importance should I attach to having the following?
Image Stabilisation
A Live View screen
Dust Reduction
Aspect ratio of the sensor 3:2 or 4:3? It might be good to do the occasional large print of 10 x 8 and not lose too much in cropping, is it correct to say that you don’t lose too much from a 6 x 4 when using the four-thirds system?
Can one get 9 x 6” prints from companies such as Snapfish, and if not why not? !!

Models I am considering are Pentax Km, Nikon D40/D60, and Olympus E420; plus perhaps the Canon 1000D. I haven’t yet handled any of these cameras. It’s very important to me that camera and lens are small and light, as I’m a fairly small chap with small hands!

Lens related questions:

As an example of a situation, if I am 5 or 6 feet away from an insect on a plant stem, and I know I can’t get any nearer because the creature will be disturbed and fly off if I do, what sort of lens in mm, would I need to get a detailed frame filling shot? The past two years I’ve been using a Canon Powershot compact (with a 6 x zoom) and it’s exactly this type of scenario where I couldn’t hope to get a shot; although if you can get within a foot it will do quite good shots in macro mode.
I’ve heard quite a bit of praise for the Sigma 105mm macro (F2.8?) lens, but, bearing in mind the above example, from how far out from the subject can it be used?
Would a kit lens 18-55mm be any good in this example, or would I need to buy something else?
How about purchasing an 18-105mm lens as a general purpose, including landscapes, plus a dedicated macro, eg the Sigma 105mm macro F2.8? Maybe I could get away with just two lenses then!

I am very grateful for any guidance.

[Pete Eeles]

Hi Andy - one thing you won't be short of here is opinions - mine follow

Image Stabilisation - I've never had image stabilisation in any camera body I've had, only in a 400mm telephoto lens I use for long-range shots, where it's really useful. In order to get get the stable image I need when photographing butterflies, I think a fast shutter speed, flash (if necessary) and a tripod are as (if not more) effective (since you'll still need these even if you have image stablisation!). In summary - this is a "nice to have" and not a "necessity" for butterfly photography.

A Live View screen - A complete and utter waste of time in my opinion. All it does is drain the battery more quickly.

Dust Reduction - Another "nice to have" since it's not "dust elimination"

"Aspect ratio of the sensor 3:2 or 4:3" - I'm not sure about this - I always thought that the aspect ratio of most "enthusiatic amateur" DSLRs was the same - it was the magnfication that changed; I'm only aware of a full frame sensor (1:1) or one that gives you a 1.6 magnification. In which case ... the answer really depends on the lens you intend to use in combination with the camera body. I think a full-frame sensor with (say) a 150mm or 180mm macro lens will give you more flexibility when you want to shoot landscapes (where the 1.6 magnification is a negative feature!). A sensor that gives you a 1.6 magnification with (say) a 100mm or 105mm will result in a dedicated setup that is less-flexible (which, by the way, is what I have!).

"It might be good to do the occasional large print of 10 x 8 and not lose too much in cropping, is it correct to say that you don’t lose too much from a 6 x 4 when using the four-thirds system?"
No idea. See above

"Can one get 9 x 6” prints from companies such as Snapfish, and if not why not? !!"
I've never heard of Snapfish.

"Models I am considering are Pentax Km, Nikon D40/D60, and Olympus E420; plus perhaps the Canon 1000D. I haven’t yet handled any of these cameras. It’s very important to me that camera and lens are small and light, as I’m a fairly small chap with small hands!"
One thing to bear in mind is the range of lenses you'll have access to. The camera body is only a small part of getting a good image and some of the lenses are really heavy Anyway - I'm sure you'll be able to handle any model you buy - so long as you use a tripod when necessary (which is what I do when I have my 400mm lens attached!)

"As an example of a situation, if I am 5 or 6 feet away from an insect on a plant stem, and I know I can’t get any nearer because the creature will be disturbed and fly off if I do, what sort of lens in mm, would I need to get a detailed frame filling shot?"
At 5 or 6 feet away, probably a 400mm lens!!! That's a very long way away!

"The past two years I’ve been using a Canon Powershot compact (with a 6 x zoom) and it’s exactly this type of scenario where I couldn’t hope to get a shot; although if you can get within a foot it will do quite good shots in macro mode."
I use a Canon 30D with a 105mm macro lens, and get decent shots around 3 feet away.

"I’ve heard quite a bit of praise for the Sigma 105mm macro (F2.8?) lens, but, bearing in mind the above example, from how far out from the subject can it be used?"
See above. Some on this forum would insist that a 150mm macro is the best option.

"Would a kit lens 18-55mm be any good in this example, or would I need to buy something else?"
You need a dedicated macro lens, in my humble opinion.

"How about purchasing an 18-105mm lens as a general purpose, including landscapes, plus a dedicated macro, eg the Sigma 105mm macro F2.8? Maybe I could get away with just two lenses then!"
My 2 main lenses are a Sigma 105mm macro, and a Canon 100-400mm telephoto (mainly for birds and long-range shots). For general-purpose portraits, I use a Canon Powershot G9 since my camera body doesn't have a full-frame sensor.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Gruditch]

Hi Andy.
As Pete says forget Live view, it's just a useless gimmick.

Dust reduction helps, but is no guarantee for a dust free sensor.

I wouldn't worry to much about size and weight, your not going to get any DSLR, plus lens in your pocket, and you will soon get used to the size of a DSLR, you can't be smaller than my Misses, and she hates the small camera body's.

It makes economic sense to buy a camera and lens kit. You should not expect a professional standard lens to come with a entry level DSLR, but it will get you started.

Like Pete, I would advise a dedicated Macro lens. I use the Sigma 150 F/2.8.

Image stabilisation is a must for longer lenses, but not necessary on wide angle lens ie landscape.

I use a tripod for Macro work, but a good monopod will serve you equally well.

Regards Gruditch

[eccles]

Image stabilisation is a must for longer lenses, but not necessary on wide angle lens ie landscape.

Sorry Gary, but this is rubbish. Image stabilisation works at whatever focal length you want to shoot with, even at short focal lengths. For example, think of waterfalls where you want to shoot at 1/10s to blur the water but keep the rest sharp, and don't have a tripod. You can do it with an image stabilised setup. Until stabilised lenses are available through the whole range of focal lengths the only sensible answer is to get a camera with it built in. This means Sony, Pentax or Olympus, and means that EVERY lens you buy is stabilised, beit Sigma, Tamron, Vivitar, or whatever.
I use a monopod with 400-500mm focal lengths. I hand hold for anything less. I *very* occasionally use a tripod. Mostly when shooting butterflies I travel light with my Sony DSLR, relying on Steady-Shot stabilisation to keep my photos sharp, where Canikon users cannot, being lumbered with monopods or tripods.
Think about this: Stabilised camera bodies are looked on by those whose cameras don't have it as something of a non-essential gimmic. But the same people extoll the latest stabilised lens as the best thing since sliced bread, even to the point of lamenting about why other lenses in the line up aren't stabilised. Well duh!!!!!

[Pete Eeles]

For example, think of waterfalls where you want to shoot at 1/10s to blur the water but keep the rest sharp, and don't have a tripod. You can do it with an image stabilised setup.

What about slower shutter speeds? What about 2 seconds?

Until stabilised lenses are available through the whole range of focal lengths the only sensible answer is to get a camera with it built in.

Or a tripod

If image quality is of utmost importance, my assumption is that means using a tripod. Even the camera and lens manufacturers would seem to agree, since the general recommendation is to turn image stabilisation off when using a tripod! My understanding is that image stablisation provides a better result when shooting handheld, but will never better the use of a tripod. I guess you could see this as a spectrum (worst to best):

Handheld -> Handheld, image stabilized -> Monopod, image stabilized -> Tripod

The main problem with butterflies, of course, is that they move about - and a tripod can become quite cumbersome. And so a setup that allows most flexibility is probably best.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Gruditch]

At a recent visit to a falconry centre, I was with 14 other Canon users, none of which was using a Tripod or monopod. So to claim that all Canon and Nikon users must us tripods is just nonsense.
I'm not saying that you get better results hand held, but at a packed falconry centre, its just more practical.

You are right Pete, you not going to hand hold for milky water effect, no IS is that good, you need a tripod.

Any DSLR plus a Sigma 105 or 150 and a monopod, is a great mobile set up for butterflies.

Gruditch

[eccles]

The main problem with butterflies, of course, is that they move about - and a tripod can become quite cumbersome. And so a setup that allows most flexibility is probably best.

Exactly.

[Pete Eeles]

Although other factors also come into play - although you don't mention these Andy. Such as cost, 2nd hand value, range of lenses available, etc. etc.

Cheers,

- Pete

[eccles]

If size and weight really are desperately important then consider the Olympus bodies. You mention the E-420, although I would go for the better spec'd 520 which has image stabilisation. The sensor is half frame meaning that you lose out a little on pixel density but the lenses are smaller.

[Gruditch]

Pete has touched on a subject, that must warrant serious consideration, when choosing which manufacture to go with. Because lets face it, once you have laid out some serious £££, even if very dissatisfied, you are very unlikely to swap brands.

It is hard to predict what sort of photography you will end up doing, so it is wise to take a long look at what range of lenses, each brand has to offer.

If wildlife photography ended up being your thing, Olympus for example, has a 300mm as their longest lens. Where Nikon offer 5, and Canon 7 lenses at 400mm and over.

Also because the big two, Canon, and Nikon are so popular, third party lens manufactures, like Sigma, make every lens in their range, in a Canon or Nikon mount.

Gruditch

[eccles]

Gary, Olympus sensors are cropped to half frame meaning that a 300mm lens has an equivalent field of view on such a sensor as a 450mm in 35mm format. This is not to say it is the same as a 450mm lens, it isn't, it's a 300mm, so you have a point, but Olympus lenses are geared towards their bigger crop factor and that should be taken into consideration.

Andy, it's also no good looking at the total range of lenses if there's no way you're going to pay upwards of £3000 for some of the longer lenses in the popular mounts. You have to decide what you can afford, and perhaps look at the second hand market as well as new. If you consider the latter then you have to do your homework on what is compatible with your prospective purchase. I know that ALL minolta AF lenses from 1985 onwards will work on ALL Sony and Minolta DSLRs with AF and anti-shake. I don't know of any compatibility issues with earlier Canon AF lenses, but I do know that some entry level Nikon cameras will not autofocus with many Nikkor lenses, old and current, because they lack the AF drive to do it.
The real crux for you, Andy, is what you want to use your camera for. Your stated requirement is for butterflies, bugs, flowers and landscapes. Pretty well all the cameras you've considered, with the addition of Sony, will do what you wish.
As Gary has stated, there are fewer holes in lens line ups for the big two, Canon and Nikon. For example, Sigma don't make a 150mm macro for the Sony, but they do make 50,70,105 and 180 Macros for it. In any case I have a couple of workarounds that enable my Sony to keep a fair working distance that are IMO pretty good, and incidently work out cheaper than the Sigma 150 as well. It should be added that Sigma don't make ANY stabilised macro lenses for Canikon whereas the 50, 70, 105 and 180 Sigma macros are stabilised on Sony bodies.
Weight and size is important? How important? If it means the difference between moving to a DSLR and not then a 900 gram Sigma 150 on a 500 gram body may not be all that palatable. A Sigma 105 weighs half as much as the 150. Stick a 1.4x teleconverter on it and you're back to the same working distance as the bigger lens.
You mentioned that you haven't actually handled any of your choice, and this is probably the most important of the lot as all modern DSLRs will outperform your compact by a substantial degree.
My feeling is that despite its shortage of really long lenses, the Olympus E-520 may suit you best because of the size and weight factor based on its 1/2 frame sensor, but get down to your local shop and play with as many as you can.
Good hunting,
Mike.

[Gruditch]

If weight is a issue that Olympus 300 F/2.8, is a no no, it weighs more than the Sigma 500 f/ 4.5.

Of all the dozens of photographers that I personally know, I only know one who uses Olympus.
In-fact I have been on two organised photography days lately, and there was not a single person using anything other than Canon or Nikon. And if there was I'm sure they would of felt like a social leper.

As I said, you do not know where you will end up, so it is wise to look at the whole range on offer. I would of run a mile from photography, if when I started out, I knew how much money I would eventually end up spending.

Where old lenses are concerned, I personally would not go down the second hand route.
I seem to remember a person on these forums, getting pretty upset, when they found that they could not get a lens fixed, because spares were no longer made.


I think that we came to the conclusion that the only Macro with any form of IS, was a Nikon, VR in that case, and I seem to remember Malcom Farrow said, that he usually turns it off.

Did the Sigma 105 take a x1.4, can't remember, but I have a hunch it didn't.

all modern DSLRs will outperform your compact by a substantial degree.

Only if you learn how to use it.

Gruditch

[eccles]

If weight is a issue that Olympus 300 F/2.8, is a no no, it weighs more than the Sigma 500 f/ 4.5

Yes, pretty much all 300 F2.8 DSLR lenses, whatever the brand, are heavy, and expensive too. The argument still holds for the more run-of-the-mill lenses though. Zuiko lenses are generally accepted to be of good quality too, even the cheaper zooms.

I seem to remember a person on these forums, getting pretty upset, when they found that they could not get a lens fixed, because spares were no longer made.

Yes, that was an old Sigma of mine, and I was rather miffed about it. I have since heard of several problems with Sigma reliability, indeed with a 150mm Macro owned by another person on these forums . I may have made a mistake in part exchanging the broken lens with a new Sigma 100-300 F4, but at least this one has a three year warranty and is still current so will have spares. And optically it is superb. Having said that, I would still hesitate to buy s.h Sigma glass. I haven't heard of Minolta lenses failing to anything like the same degree, however, and have two myself. They are very good quality.

I think that we came to the conclusion that the only Macro with any form of IS, was a Nikon, VR in that case, and I seem to remember Malcom Farrow said, that he usually turns it off.

My Sigma 105mm macro is stabilised on my Sony. I keep it turned on because it works.

Did the Sigma 105 take a x1.4, can't remember, but I have a hunch it didn't.

You're partly right. The Sigma TC won't fit but a generic one will. I get good results from a Kenko (not coffee) Pro 300 1.4x.

Only if you learn how to use it.

You never spoke a truer word. When I bought my first DSLR, I wondered what the hell I'd done as my early pictures were nowhere near as good as from the Canon S3 compact I'd been using. The compact was an incredibly forgiving camera, and as such I had to relearn how to take photos all over again. But the effort is rewarded many times over, and although I kept the compact for a while, thinking I'd use it for when I couldn't be bothered to cart a DSLR around, in the end I would always make the effort to take the DSLR because of better results, and eventually sold the compact. My old A100 with 18-70 kit lens plus 55-200 tele is, for me, handy enough to carry around all day so that's what I use instead. But the extra weight isn't for everyone so you really have to get out and play with a few cameras to be sure of what you feel happy with.

[Gruditch]

Are you still there Andy, I think he's gone Eccles,

Anyway, are you saying your not happy with your 100-300, from a couple of reviews I read, it's a magnificent lens.

I have since heard of several problems with Sigma reliability,

With the amount of Sigma lenses out there,( compared to other lenses,) it may seem like a lot more go wrong, or they just do.

Sigma 300, 2.8 = 2400g
Canon 300, 2.8 = 2550g
Sigma 120-300, 2.8 = 2600g
Nikon 300, 2.8 = 2850g
Olympus 300, 2.8 = 3290g It's a pig!

BTW the RR on the Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 has gone up by one third, to £3000 since I got one.

Gruditch

[eccles]

Are you still there Andy, I think he's gone Eccles,

Did we scare him off?

Anyway, are you saying your not happy with your 100-300, from a couple of reviews I read, it's a magnificent lens.

Not at all. It has a small bit of easily correctable red/green CA at full zoom, but apart from that it's as sharp and detailed as a prime throughout, even wide open. When matched with the Sigma EX 1.4x TC it is still very sharp, making a very nice 420mm f5.6 optic. My only worry is whether it will maintain its reliability, and it was only the Sigma 3 year warranty that persuaded me to go with it and do the part exchange.

With the amount of Sigma lenses out there,( compared to other lenses,) it may seem like a lot more go wrong, or they just do.

I think most of the horror stories are with the cheaper Sigmas like the 70-300, although a friend's Bigma failed within a month or so of him getting it.

Sigma 300, 2.8 = 2400g
Canon 300, 2.8 = 2550g
Sigma 120-300, 2.8 = 2600g
Nikon 300, 2.8 = 2850g
Olympus 300, 2.8 = 3290g It's a pig!

Hmm, I see what you mean. I wonder why? The Sony 300/2.8 is only 2310g.

[Gruditch]

I wonder why? The Sony 300/2.8 is only 2310g.

Sorry never looked, didn't think they had anything over 200mm

Met a guy the other day, who said he had had nothing but trouble with his Bigma.

Gruditch

[eccles]

didn't think they had anything over 200mm

The Sony 300/f2.8 is highly regarded and performs very well with Sony 1.4x and 2x TCs

Also, check out this one:
http://www.rgb-tech.co.uk/product/1825
I've seen some results from it and it's very impressive.

Your point is well taken though. Sony lacks a medium/large aperture prime over 400mm. Big Minoltas come up on the s/h market from time to time, such as this one: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=24
They're generally well looked after but you have to wait for what turns up.

[Andy.bn]

Hi everyone, and thanks for all the feedback, quite a response.

“I think a fast shutter speed, flash (if necessary) and a tripod are as (if not more) effective (since you'll still need these even if you have image stabilisation!).”
"I use a Canon 30D with a 105mm macro lens, and get decent shots around 3 feet away." Thanks for these comments, Pete, it gives me some idea of what to expect. I think as regards the lenses, I wouldn’t want to carry around anything larger than the 105mm macro.

With camera bodies, I am going off of the Pentax Km, the What Digital Camera mag test says it frequently underexposes, which is something I find irritating. It also uses the wretched AA batteries, which I’m told are not available in rechargeable lithium ion form, unless anyone knows differently.

I am quite tempted in principle by the Olympus E420/E520 models, due to compact size and weight, the test generally rates them highly, except for a slow auto focus, which is a snag. The big difficulty is that the Sigma 105mm macro, or anything comparable, is not made in the Olympus mount (maybe this will soon change?) , and Olympus’s own lenses have nothing comparable, the largest I can see listed is a 50mm macro. But how close would I need to be to the subject with this? So this camera is doing it’s best to rule itself out for close up insect photography.

So this seems to narrow the choices down to Sony, or “Canikon” as some of you chaps say.
I was thinking that there may be occasions when live view could be useful, such as when contorting oneself amongst shrubbery to get an awkward shot, you wouldn’t then need to press the camera body so close to your face, thus giving you an easier range of movement.
Eccles’ point about having a stabilized camera body does sound pretty sensible to me, though I can appreciate you may get even better results with a mono/tripod. I have to say,when seeing the 'keen' photographers, with their DSLR'S out on trips in the field, I've can't recall seeing anyone doing other than using their cameras 'hand held'.
I shall order several more test reports; there is certainly much thought and research to be done!
thanks from Andy.

[Gruditch]

Hi Andy, I think your find that the Sigma 105 does indeed come in a Olympus mount. ( FOUR THIRDS )

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/macro/105mm.htm


Don't be fooled by every DSLR user you see in the field. Just because the guy has a DSLR, it does not automatically mean he is taking great shots, or has the faintest idea what he is doing.

A lot of people, and I know because I was one. Try hand holding at all costs, with inadequate lenses, and usually on the cameras inappropriate auto settings.
I've seen people wasting shot after shot standing there, with a Sigma 28-300 pointing a Purple Emperor, God I bet they were disappointed when they got home.

A good light monopod is no burden at all, in-fact as it enables you to stick your camera over your shoulder, it's pretty handy for carrying.

I do not like using a tripod, but personally I found for Macro work, my results improved using one.

I'm a bit sceptical about Magazine reviews, full page adds on the next page and all that.

No live view is c@@P, just there to tempt those who have been used to it.

Gruditch

[JKT]

Don't be fooled by every DSLR user you see in the field. Just because the guy has a DSLR, it does not automatically mean he is taking great shots, or has the faintest idea what he is doing.

A lot of people, and I know because I was one. Try hand holding at all costs, with inadequate lenses, and usually on the cameras inappropriate auto settings.

Only 1/3 - do I qualify?

I've seen people wasting shot after shot standing there, with a Sigma 28-300 pointing a Purple Emperor, God I bet they were disappointed when they got home.

Been there, done that - well not with 28-300. It only takes one to be satisfied...

A good light monopod is no burden at all, in-fact as it enables you to stick your camera over your shoulder, it's pretty handy for carrying.

I can't deny that it would help, but it is not an absolute must for good pictures. Of course, the definition of "good" depends on your needs. I'm already carrying two sticks and I don't want a third to make things even more difficult.

I'm a bit sceptical about Magazine reviews, full page adds on the next page and all that.

There's that...

No live view is c@@P, just there to tempt those who have been used to it.

It has its uses, but they are rather limited. It definitely is not what the advertisements claim.