I'm strongly considering investing in a digital SLR, something I should have done years ago but you know how it is when a Yorkshireman has to part with money...
Two questions: I'm led to believe that the lens is the most important part of any camera and after trolling through previous threads, it seems that the Sigma 150mm is a popular choice. But how versatile is it? I know it's good for insects at close range, but will it give decent shots of a small bird in the bushes 10 to 20 metres away, or a bigger animal or bird at greater distance?
Also, if I opt for a modestly priced body, say in the region of £300, will this significantly detract from the results I would obtain with one of the more expensive Canon EOS models?
Digital SLR Advice
-
David Tipping
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:16 am
- Location: Harrogate
Hi David,
The lens is certainly the most important part of the camera. I have a "cheap" digital SLR, the antique 300D and I use a 150mm Sigma lens. Look at the sharpness of my entries in the April & May competitions to see for yourself the combination of a good lens and a cheap camera.
As for the lens, I don't think there is any question that the 150mm is a good one, but the focal length isn't very versatile.
On a low end dSLR, you have to apply a 1.6x conversion, so the 150mm lens becomes 240mm. Practically, I find this great for butterflies, dragonflies, etc... it's the perfect length for getting close enough to twitchy insects and filling the frame.
However, I find it is too long for other forms of macro photography (such as flowers) and too short for birds and beasts. Even with a 300mm to 500mm lens it takes a great deal of fieldcraft to fill the frame with small wild birds!
I have now set up a savings fund for the Canon 500 f4/L, which at the rate I'm going, I'll have by 2020... unless my move to Yorkshire effects my thriftiness and I make do with what I've got!
Regards, Chris
PS/ saw your pic of a green hairstreak on the YBC website... I've been to the Chevin many times and have never found one. Where is the best place to look?
The lens is certainly the most important part of the camera. I have a "cheap" digital SLR, the antique 300D and I use a 150mm Sigma lens. Look at the sharpness of my entries in the April & May competitions to see for yourself the combination of a good lens and a cheap camera.
As for the lens, I don't think there is any question that the 150mm is a good one, but the focal length isn't very versatile.
On a low end dSLR, you have to apply a 1.6x conversion, so the 150mm lens becomes 240mm. Practically, I find this great for butterflies, dragonflies, etc... it's the perfect length for getting close enough to twitchy insects and filling the frame.
However, I find it is too long for other forms of macro photography (such as flowers) and too short for birds and beasts. Even with a 300mm to 500mm lens it takes a great deal of fieldcraft to fill the frame with small wild birds!
I have now set up a savings fund for the Canon 500 f4/L, which at the rate I'm going, I'll have by 2020... unless my move to Yorkshire effects my thriftiness and I make do with what I've got!
Regards, Chris
PS/ saw your pic of a green hairstreak on the YBC website... I've been to the Chevin many times and have never found one. Where is the best place to look?
-
David Tipping
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:16 am
- Location: Harrogate
-
Gruditch
- Moderator & Stock Contributor
- Posts: 1689
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 3:30 pm
- Location: Hampshire
- Contact:
Hi David
Like Chris i have a old 300d but unlike him i scrimped on the lens. I use a Sigma 28-300mm, which if you get close to your subject and wind it right out to 300mm gives a pretty good macro facility, and you can use it for a wide range of other uses. Sounds good, but to get a good close up shot, i have to use a tripod, manual focus and a bleeding remote.
Get the 150mm macro
Gruditch
Like Chris i have a old 300d but unlike him i scrimped on the lens. I use a Sigma 28-300mm, which if you get close to your subject and wind it right out to 300mm gives a pretty good macro facility, and you can use it for a wide range of other uses. Sounds good, but to get a good close up shot, i have to use a tripod, manual focus and a bleeding remote.
Get the 150mm macro
Gruditch
Hi David
have you thought of buying a secondhand dslr?
I got a canon rebel xt for about £300 last year, I do like the camera and still learning how to get the best from it, I've now got the canon 100mm 2.8f macro lens, and yes it did cost an arm and a leg, I'm working on a system to photograph very small objects at 4 times life size, will post some pics once I master it, it involves reversing a wide angle lens on the front of the 100mm lens, it does work
have you thought of buying a secondhand dslr?
I got a canon rebel xt for about £300 last year, I do like the camera and still learning how to get the best from it, I've now got the canon 100mm 2.8f macro lens, and yes it did cost an arm and a leg, I'm working on a system to photograph very small objects at 4 times life size, will post some pics once I master it, it involves reversing a wide angle lens on the front of the 100mm lens, it does work
-
Dave McCormick
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:46 pm
- Location: Co Down, Northern Ireland
- Contact:
I would definitly say the SIgma macro lenses are great after seeing some of the images here. I am saving for a Cannon 500D (Which I will probably have in around 15 years the way I am going)
I believe that a "Decent camera" (better than average and not super high quality, with a good range of MP sich as 8.0 or up to 10.2 should give great shots) would be best to compliment a good lens such as the sigma.
Whats the point of having a low end DSLR when it can limit the peformance of the lens?
Image stabilisation lens is always a plus, but a good tripod/monopod is also necessary if you want that great shot anyway. Oh, and always look out for your sensor getting dust and dirt on it. If you need to chnage lenses, do it in a place with no dust/dirt can get in e.g. car etc...
I am no expert here since have never had or used A DSLR, but these are from seeing poeple who have used the before and knowing what to look out for.
I believe that a "Decent camera" (better than average and not super high quality, with a good range of MP sich as 8.0 or up to 10.2 should give great shots) would be best to compliment a good lens such as the sigma.
Whats the point of having a low end DSLR when it can limit the peformance of the lens?
Image stabilisation lens is always a plus, but a good tripod/monopod is also necessary if you want that great shot anyway. Oh, and always look out for your sensor getting dust and dirt on it. If you need to chnage lenses, do it in a place with no dust/dirt can get in e.g. car etc...
I am no expert here since have never had or used A DSLR, but these are from seeing poeple who have used the before and knowing what to look out for.
Cheers all,
My Website: My new website: http://daveslepidoptera.com/ - Last Update: 11/10/2011
My Nature videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/DynamixWarePro
My Website: My new website: http://daveslepidoptera.com/ - Last Update: 11/10/2011
My Nature videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/DynamixWarePro
I use a Canon 400 D with a Canon 300mm IS zoom. Its not bad for birding as it gives the equivalent to approximately a 450mm lens on the 400 D, although any lens you use never seems long enough. It will focus close enough to get good shots of large dragonflies as it is but for small butterflies I add one or two Kenko spacers.
Cheers
Dave
Cheers
Dave
Last edited by Dave Mac on Thu Jun 07, 2007 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Dave McCormick
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:46 pm
- Location: Co Down, Northern Ireland
- Contact:
I can see what you mean about birds, but the dragonfly is really clear, sharp and amazing. 
If I were you (probably can't afford this) get two lenses. Get the one that will give you what you want now, and a specific one for birds later.
If I were you (probably can't afford this) get two lenses. Get the one that will give you what you want now, and a specific one for birds later.
Cheers all,
My Website: My new website: http://daveslepidoptera.com/ - Last Update: 11/10/2011
My Nature videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/DynamixWarePro
My Website: My new website: http://daveslepidoptera.com/ - Last Update: 11/10/2011
My Nature videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/DynamixWarePro
-
Malcolm Farrow
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 9:14 pm
- Location: Suffolk
- Contact:
Hi David
I can only talk from personal experience. I haven't used many of the current crop of low-end DSLRs, but I have tried my stepson's Nikon D40 which gives excellent results with surprisingly few limitations. based on that, my guess is that in terms of performance, most of the camera models from the main makers will be similar - it's a case of finding one you like and can afford. I rely on autofocus a lot for my insect photography so I would consider this the most important feature to consider on the body, as resolution and 'noise' are likely to be pretty similar. Fast, accurate focusing is a must and it helps if the focusing points are in useful positions.
So far as lenses go, IMO there's a clear first choice for butterflies, the Nikon 105mm AFS VR macro. It's focal length is perfect with the small sensor DSLRs, it focuses superbly quickly and the VR is brilliant for hand-holding, which is often necessary when chasing active insects. I'd still favour a 100mm lens without the VR feature as, for me, it's the ideal compromise between weight, working distance and potential for hand-holding - I used a 180mm Sigma for a while and found I got fewer sharp shots due to shake, and the limited depth of field was problem too.
With good technique and patience, it's often possible to approach insects very closely - and when you can't, having more mega pixels can help!
Forget about having a dual purpose lens for birds. Unless you plan to work from a hide, you need a very long lens (400mm - 600mm) which will be heavy and impractical for insects.
Sorry this is such an 'essay' but hope it's of use.
Best wishes
Malc
I can only talk from personal experience. I haven't used many of the current crop of low-end DSLRs, but I have tried my stepson's Nikon D40 which gives excellent results with surprisingly few limitations. based on that, my guess is that in terms of performance, most of the camera models from the main makers will be similar - it's a case of finding one you like and can afford. I rely on autofocus a lot for my insect photography so I would consider this the most important feature to consider on the body, as resolution and 'noise' are likely to be pretty similar. Fast, accurate focusing is a must and it helps if the focusing points are in useful positions.
So far as lenses go, IMO there's a clear first choice for butterflies, the Nikon 105mm AFS VR macro. It's focal length is perfect with the small sensor DSLRs, it focuses superbly quickly and the VR is brilliant for hand-holding, which is often necessary when chasing active insects. I'd still favour a 100mm lens without the VR feature as, for me, it's the ideal compromise between weight, working distance and potential for hand-holding - I used a 180mm Sigma for a while and found I got fewer sharp shots due to shake, and the limited depth of field was problem too.
With good technique and patience, it's often possible to approach insects very closely - and when you can't, having more mega pixels can help!
Forget about having a dual purpose lens for birds. Unless you plan to work from a hide, you need a very long lens (400mm - 600mm) which will be heavy and impractical for insects.
Sorry this is such an 'essay' but hope it's of use.
Best wishes
Malc