New Camera

[Mike Young]

have you tried to hand-hold a Nikon D200+macro?

Yes and with an extra battery grip, successfully, though I'll agree its more difficult.

I can get underneath & close-up to my subjects without a tripod or monopod with my little set-up and hand-hold

So have I on a number of occasions with my D200

And Dave at the end of this debate, (if it ever ends), you turn round and tell us you settled for a bridge camera, I will kill you

Ill add my support to Gary here

[Chris]

taken at 1/20s @ f/11 without IS

Canon 300D, SIGMA 150mm Macro on tripod.

I get the feeling Dave is the youngest person to use the forum so is unlikely to be arthritic. I appreciate what you're saying Jack, and am sorry to hear about your condition, but I was just trying to match advice to Dave's specific requirements. He is young, strong and has £800 to spend. He is just starting his photographic journey and an SLR outfit could last him a lifetime (in the way that Trigger's broom did in Only Fools and Horses!)

With regard the "level playing field", I kind of agree with you, though I don't think we should segregate people due to the kit they can use. I think I was the first person to be critical of the voting in competitions because as you say, too much weight was being given to technical quality and not enough to composition and the overall picture.



Kind Regards, Chris

[Jack Harrison]

I didn't suggest a competition for non-DSLRs, but a competition where the type of camera (it might well be a DSLR) is irrelevant. If all pictures had to be reduced to a maximum size of say 640 pixels (width or height) then we could compare photographers and actual photos rather than cameras. Composition, lighting, habits, etc could be shown and the voters would not be overwhelmed by technical excellence in terms of resolution and ability to show fine detail. This certainly seems to be the main factor that most influences voting patterns at present. A friend of mine tells me privately that he thinks it is quite pointless entering his pictures as they never will get votes, however interesting his shots might be, as images his small compact simply don't produce that impact that is so evident from photos from DSLRs. In my earlier post, I used the term “level playing field”. At the moment, it isn't.

I do have to wonder – and here I am being controversial – whether the proponents of DSLRs are subconsciously defending their huge expenditure and cannot face the fact that a top end compact will do more or less the same job for a fraction of the costs and certainly with much less effort. I draw a parallel. I recently spend £130 on a SatNav. Sure, there are situations where it is certainly useful (such as finding an obscure locality when driving on one's own), but in other circumstances, it is worse than useless and if followed slavishly, directs you on to most unsuitable routes. Yet I spent yesterday trying to justify to my wife my expenditure (we had to do a 350 mile journey). She wasn't convinced that £130 was money well spent. She is of course absolutely right. Equally, I am not convinced that £800+ spent on a DSLR when the results from a top spec £250 compact are only marginally less good, is money well spent. But of course, those of you have spent that amount on your DSLRs and accessories naturally want to justify that expense to the rest of us – and perhaps most importantly, to yourselves.

Finally, I might add that it is a common misunderstanding that arthritis is only an old person's problem My rheumatic/arthritic condition was first identified as a 19 year old. Ankylosing spondylitis is in fact normally a young person's condition but I was the odd one out and mine didn't really become a nuisance until I was into middle age. It affects people in very different ways and to different degrees – it rarely stopped Michael Atherton playing cricket for England.

Jack

[Dave Mac]

I know its not quite the same and probably not relevant, but on a recent birding trip I took the binoculars, telescope and a Canon point and shoot and left the DSLR behind. This is because I would have needed a pack horse to take it all. I saw loads of spectacular birds lots of them lifers and where possible shot pictures of them. Quite frankly the results were disappointing, the P&S did not have enough reach or sharpness. I should have taken the DSLR gear and left the telescope. I would have collected just as many lifers as most of them could be seen with binoculars (The group leader identified nearly all of them using his scope) and I would have had a lot more good quality pictures to remind me of the holiday.

Dave

[Mike Young]

I am not convinced that £800+ spent on a DSLR when the results from a top spec £250 compact are only marginally less good, is money well spent. But of course, those of you have spent that amount on your DSLRs and accessories naturally want to justify that expense to the rest of us – and perhaps most importantly, to yourselves.

I don't need to justify my expenditure to anyone, least of all myself, I work hard for my dosh and I might add, I'm not a high earner! also I waited until my family left home before I could afford to get the kit I really wanted and the time to use it.
When I was ready to purchase my kit, the ONLY consideration was what brand to buy and I certainly did not ponder over compact P&S versus DSLR.

Don't forget we not just talking about image quality here, versatility and durability are also just a couple of the important factors in the equation.

[Mike Young]

I do have to wonder – and here I am being controversial – whether the proponents of DSLRs are subconsciously defending their huge expenditure and cannot face the fact that a top end compact will do more or less the same job for a fraction of the costs and certainly with much less effort.

Sorry.....but "more or less" aint good enough for me !

I'm confident that my DSLR kit will provide me the best possible results, given that I use it properly, nearly as good just doesn't ring my bell, and on that basis I would always recommend anyone to go for DSLR.

As regards "effort" I would carry a 50lb rucker 20 miles If thats what it takes to get the shot.
I do accept though that those who are less fit will have to make decisions based on their own circumstanses, and that for many people photography is incidental to a day out.

[Gruditch]

One minute a compact can not compete on a level playing, and the next its as good as any D-SLR, make your mind up Jack
And yes it was a controversial thing to say, so you deserve what flack your gonna get for it


Gruditch

[Padfield]

OK, time for spanner in the works. Dave, I'm here to make your decision even more difficult!!

If I were a young student again, with a pretty good camera (you take excellent pictures, Dave!) and £800 burning a hole in my pocket, I would take my pretty good camera inter-railing around Europe, discovering new places and new people and new butterflies. Unless you become a teacher (like me ) you may never have the chance again until you retire.

Of course I agree that DSLRs are better than compacts and if your aim is to take the best pictures possible you will want to get one. All the photographers commenting on this post are absolutely right about that, and as I'm not really a photographer I wouldn't presume to give advice in that area anyway. If someone offered me a free DSLR today I would accept with joy. But if someone offered me £800 I wouldn't even consider spending it on a camera, because I have a perfectly adequate one already. I would start planning where to go next spring...

The price of cameras only goes down (at the moment) and the quality only goes up. There is absolutely no hurry!

Guy

PS - I, for one, thought Jack's words were wise!

[Dave McCormick]

Thanks guys for all your advice. The reason I wanted a DSLR was becuase of a few things:

1) I wanted to get shots of some butterflies that I could not get close to for various reasons like Purple Hairstreaks and there is a place where I find Orange-Tips and its very boggy in areas and hard to get close to them, so a long lens would help.

I know an area that as many Holly Blues and they are real hard to get even near to with a compact, but I have tried my best.

2) I wanted to start taking pics of Dragonfly/damselflys too.

3) There is a lot of birds around my area like Kestrals, Sparrowhawks, buzzards etc... and wanted good shots of them from varous positions and a compact is limited with that.

One of the hardest things I found to get a shot of when I first saw one, was a DG Fratillary. Where I found them it was overgrown a bit and when one landed on a thistle, the best shot I could get was this:



f/4.5
exposure: 1/2000sec
ISO-400
Multi-spot

I had to zoom in pritty far to get this, and with my compact, I noticed that, the farther you zoom in, the slightly more blurred it gets on macro mode. Also, this one never settled for too long so it was hard to get any decient pic.

I know also, that some compacts can get just as good results as some DSLRs, but for me, its limitations on how far you can zoom in to things and what I want shots off. Anyway, I will keep all your advice in mind, and no I won't be getting a bridge camera.

[NickB]

....But when I do I will be ready to use it well, as I learn how to push the limits of my current set-up. Until then I am happy to stay with my inferior bridge (as I concede) until I find something that gives me the same hand-held performance and flexibility I get from £325 worth of kit! (The D200 is a great camera - my fiancee has one, but it kills her shoulder and arm photographing her rugby matches!)

Don't worry - I do get some pin-sharp images as well but not at 1/25th! So visualising over a grand flying from my wallet for my next investment, for very marginal results, makes me look at other priorities very seriously! Jack is right to imply that butterfly photography is just as much about heart and soul, perspiration and persistence as it is about having the latest DSLR and VR lens! We are all united by our passions for butterflies and recording them and communicating our passions to others - aren't we?

So give me a year and I'll be down the DSLR route. In fact, Dave, prices usually drop after Christmas and new year - I'm sure that we'll find a nice bundle at a better price than now!

[NickB]

They are v. difficult - I try to catch the buggers early in the morning before they are fully warmed-up or on more cloudy, cooler days....

[Gruditch]

Just to complicate things a little more, there is a good second hand market out there. I saw a Canon 20D going for £350 in L.C.E the other day,and My own 10D is third hand and was only £200, worth thinking about.

Gruditch

[Mike Young]

Jack is right to imply that butterfly photography is just as much about heart and soul, perspiration and persistence as it is about having the latest DSLR and VR lens! We are all united by our passions for butterflies and recording them and communicating our passions to others - aren't we?

Absolutely and given that we all have our choice of equipment, whatever that may be, its down to the dedication, persistance and skill of the individual and how they apply the kit, that produces the best images.
That coupled with field craft and a hefty dollop of luck

[e.garnett]

hi guys

how the post has mellowed ,as you say and we will all agree, we all love butterflies and the days spent in the feild in search of them, it reminds me of when i was a young lad when summers were real summers ,those thick lazy days i love it, to get a pic is always a bonus since there are more images stored in my mind than ever by a camera.
Dave all my images are taken with a 20d a great and light camera ,8 mega pixs pleanty to record the finest of details ,there are better around now but i would whole heartedly recomend it ,not wanting to stir the pot again but a quality lens on the end is perhaps more important and a good tripod then your done .
Remove as many vairables as you can, then if you dont get a good image its down to bad luck or us the photographers iam afraid

best

eric

[Gruditch]

Eric is right about the lens, do not scrimp here. I made the mistake of buying a multi purpose lens, before I got my Sigma 150 Macro. I had a Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 DG Macro, yes its a handy little lens to pop in your bag, but for macro work it was c***p. What ever you get, make sure its a dedicated macro lens.

Gruditch

[Dave McCormick]

OK, I just got a Canon 400D with Canon EF-S 18-55mm lens, 1GB CF and bag for £495, just got to get a good lens now and figure how to use the camera and by next year, we are set.

What would be a good Sigma macro lens? I am waiting until next year to get it, just need to figure on focusing and using my camera first then I will be ready for the close-ups

[Pete Eeles]

Good man - you definitely are set!

I use the Sigma 105mm macro. It works for me!

Cheers,

- Pete

[Gruditch]

I'm very pleased for you Dave, don't forget to practise your manual focusing
On the subject of Sigma lenses Me and Her just got a Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8 EX DG HSM, plus x1.4 and x2 converters, each.
Just had time to try a few practise shots before it got dark, very impressed sharp even at 600m with x2 on, can't wait to get out and have a proper season with it.

Gruditch

[Dave McCormick]

OK, yeah, got to practise my focusing. Anyway, think on the budget i have, a 105mm Sigma would be fine for now. Now we shall see if I do better at monthly compos or whatever.

[Dave McCormick]

Ok, went out to test my camera this morning and got some good shots, others not so good, but it will take time (lens I don't think is that great, but it will do for now):

Field area a bit foggy:



F/10
1/200sec
ISO-100
Focal Length = 25mm
Metering Mode = Pattern
Landscape mode

Spiderweb and water drips on a tree:



f/5.6
1/160sec
ISO-400
Focal length = 55mm
Metering Mode = Pattern
Close-up Mode

One last shot, think my best, Mountstewart Lake in morning:



f/10
1/200sec
ISO-400
Focal length = 33mm
Metering Mode = Pattern
Landscape Mode
Tripod