www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Now, now Gary! Info only - no bias

NickB wrote:Canon is not the only alternative.....it is a good one tho'...N

Nick,
En garde! I'm sure you're right, but once you have a certain make of SLR Body and a number of lenses to go with it, it is unlikely you will change because you'll have to go through the whole range and change your lenses too. Which is why Sigma is good because they do lenses which fit other makes of SLR bodies etc. I'm sure Nikon is a great company, though I won't be buying their stuff any time soon for that very reason

Unless you are saying that Nikon do a Macro to fit Canon? Surely you're just trying to temp Bill over to 'the dark side'...

..oh believe me - there ARE times when the shining light that is Canon does seem very appealing.....m'mmmm 18mp, 7fps, Canon's "L" lens range and price....etc, etc
But...my first experience with a decent DSLR was with the D200, which I borrowed from my fiancee, and I was so knocked-out by the quality it gave, and the pictures she took, that I went for the D300 when it came out....I also looked at reviews and pros use Nikon because they are tough things and the build quality is first class (useful when you spend a lot of time outside)...shame that their new lenses are so expensive. As you say, once you jump.....
Luckily, third-party lenses are nearly, and in some cases, as good as their branded competitors (my original Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro a case in point) and the older, second-hand original Nikkor optics (non-VR, and in some cases, manual only) still deliver superb image quality for the price; I'll use my tripod and mono-pod more. (Keep on buying those new Nikkor VR lenses and making those nice older ones available second hand to me boys )

..though that extra body would be nice - but where is there to go...? A D700? A D3 'ow much?" £££££.?

N

NickB wrote:..though that extra body would be nice - but where is there to go...? A D700? A D3 N

Looks like the price of the D700 is around £1,600.00, but it's never just the price of the new body is it? It's then the next lens that you fancy..as stated, sometimes a less sexy device like a good Tripod can make a bigger difference. If only I could be bothered to lunk one around all the time.

Interestingly, although Robert Thompson prefers Medium-format cameras, the digital camera he discusses using is always a Nikon But again, I think the top makes are often comparable in quality (and toughness in the field), but - a bit like students going to a high-street bank when at College - you often just stay with what you first go with.

Having discussed SLR's, I'm amazed by the quality of most of the images posted on this site. The bridge cameras results have really surprised me (in a good way), though plenty of kudos should go to the photographers themselves.

Michaeljf wrote: a good Tripod can make a bigger difference. If only I could be bothered to lunk one around all the time.
.... The bridge cameras results have really surprised me (in a good way), though plenty of kudos should go to the photographers themselves.

A light carbon-fibre mono-pod is a good investment...
I often can't tell the difference between when I've shot using tripod or mono-pod these days...

and Panasonic bridge cameras show the DSLR giants up in terms of image-stabilisation in-camera, don't they? Neat trick VR lenses - you buy the same image-stabilisation system every time you buy a new lens! ( all the way to a the bank )
Shame Panasonic are pushing the new 4/3rds systems as well - gives Canon and Nikon the opportunity to really milk-it with their lenses in the DSLR market
If I were entering the market buying my first DSLR now - I would probably go Canon (well they do make the printers too )

and.... the most important thing is the person behind the camera, after all....
N

Now that the competition has finished can anyone confirm the identity of these 3 please. I'd assumed I had 2 Common Blues and a Chalkhill blue (top one) but am not at all confident. It was taken in the same area as the pics in the original post, ie. The Lot, France.

Any confirmation will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Bill

The chalkhill blue looks good. I'm not sure you'll get certainty on the others, but the one on the far left looks more like Chapman's than common. Chapman's has a smoother, less grainy appearance. The dark submarginal dark spots in clear white are also good for Chapman's. The only really decisive features of this species are hidden in your picture, though (lack of cell spot - though common occasionally lacks this - and upperside androconia). I wouldn't rule out Chapman's for the one on the far right either.

Guy

Hi all. Yep these are great photos and the Sigma 150mm is a great lens at an affordable price.

Michael if we meet up again I'll let you have a go with mine if you're thinking of a purchase.

Cheers

Paul

padfield wrote:The chalkhill blue looks good. I'm not sure you'll get certainty on the others, but the one on the far left looks more like Chapman's than common. Chapman's has a smoother, less grainy appearance. The dark submarginal dark spots in clear white are also good for Chapman's. The only really decisive features of this species are hidden in your picture, though (lack of cell spot - though common occasionally lacks this - and upperside androconia). I wouldn't rule out Chapman's for the one on the far right either.

Guy

Sorry for the lateness of this but thanks for that Guy. Sadly I don't think there are any other views of these ones but I will check back through.

Thanks again

Bill