www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

After having read reports on several DSLR's and lenses, I think I've made my decision and would just like to ask if some of you think I'm about to make the correct choice. I've decided on a Canon D40 with a Canon 28/135 zoom for general use and a Canon 100mm micro for photographing butterflies and moths. Any comments would be gratefully received, thank's in anticipation, Wayne.

Hi
I take it you mean the Canon 400D, very nice camera, and Canon really seem to have the enthusiastic amateur market nailed.
I would suggest thinking about the Sigma 150mm Macro.
100mm is just that bit short for the twitchier butterflies.
I have the Sigma 180mm macro which is just a bit too long I reckon.
Lots of guys handhold that length very effectively, I personally try to use a monopod when I can, but for real sharpness, a tripod can't be beaten.
Also your other lens will be a bit 'long' at the short end giving the same field of view as a 45mm lens on the old 35mm fomat.
Instead, think maybe of a Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC Macro.
This will equate to f.o.v. of 28mm to 80mm on the old 35mm film.
In my experience, the Sigma lenses designated EX are just about as good as the revered 'L' lenses by Canon, but oodles cheaper.
You are about to embark on a rewarding, fulfilling, fascinating, but expensive, adventure - good luck!
Roger Harding

Hi Roger, thank you for your advice, I'll certainly look at the Sigma lenses before making up my mind. If there's any other advice you can give me it would really be appreciated, Wayne

Hi Roger, I recently upgraded from a Canon 300D to a 400D and I could not be more pleased with the new camera. Regarding the choice of lens, I have a 100mm Canon macro lens and it is absolutely pin sharp. It is ideal for 1:1 pictures but I have to set a shutter speed of at least 1/500 for hand held shots or use a tripod/monopod. When butterfly stalking I prefer a 300 mm image stabilised (IS) lens. This allows me to stand well back from the insects which stops too much disturbance and still hand hold the camera ie you dont have to carry a tripod
I hope this helps
Dave

Hi Wayne, I got a Sigma 150 Macro, from "Deniser Camera" on E-Bay a few weeks back, for just £320 + a tener post. Its a damn fine Lens

Gruditch

Thanks to Gruditch, I got a chance to try a Sigma 150mm Macro at the weekend.
The one image I got was really sharp, easier to hand hold than my 180mm, and a lot shorter lens making carriage simpler.
I am sold - just waiting for the right time to spring it on the lovely Rose.
I don't think I can get away with the "What this old thing?--- I've had it ages!" that I always seem to fall for.
If I were you Wayne, I would look no further.
Roger Harding

Hi Roger, Gruditch, Thank's for the information, looks like that's the lens I'll go for. Thank you for your help, kind regards, Wayne

Hi Wayne, I'm coming to this rather late - apologies.

The newish Nikon 105mm AFS macro includes vibration reduction technology (VR). Some reports suggest it is ineffective at close range but i find it definitely helps at the range used for most insect photography, except when in really tight to the very smallest species. In fact it results in significantly more 'keepers' and the extra options that come from being able to use slower shutter speeds than normal is also very helpful. And it's a wonderfully sharp, quick-focusing lens.

The combination of that lens with a D200 and a SB600 flash is hard to beat (unless you can afford a D2x!) and, at least in my opinion, superior to the options offered by other manufacturers at the moment.

Hope this isn't too late to be helpful.

Enjoy your photography.

Malcolm

Malcolm Farrow wrote:The combination of that lens with a D200 and a SB600 flash is hard to beat (unless you can afford a D2x!) and, at least in my opinion, superior to the options offered by other manufacturers at the moment.
Malcolm

I hate to disagree Malcolm...but the D200 is one of the noisiest cameras on the market. A (much cheaper) Canon 400D is far superior in that department. I think my Canon 1DmarkIIN blows it into the weeds in every department.

Martin.

PS - please don't take that as "willie-waving"...just a lot of research

I am quite happy with the noise of my D200, the features and quality far outway any small negatives cause by the sound.

Wave your parts as much as ya like Martin, just don't get caught

I hate to disagree Malcolm...but the D200 is one of the noisiest cameras on the market. A (much cheaper) Canon 400D is far superior in that department. I think my Canon 1DmarkIIN blows it into the weeds in every department.

It's a fair point, Nikon cameras are noisier than Canons, although this is only really noticeable at higher ISO settings. Actually, I wouldn't say the D200 is particularly noisy, even within the Nikon range - I've used the D70 and D40 and think it's basically very similar or better, and with the added advantage of more pixels - and I would imagine it's comparable to most cameras of a similar specification from other manufacturers too.

At up to ISO 250, you simply wouldn't be able to see the noise produced by a D200 on a full size print. Beyond 400, it's advantage Canon, unquestionably, but do many people really use ISO 800 for insect photography? I certainly find 200 is fine for 99% of my work - aren't most insects active in bright, often sunny locations after all? Typically, I work at around f11 and, at ISO 200, this usually gives me a speed of 1/60 - 1/200 second. At such speeds, the addition of VR technology gives me a critical edge, something recognised by bird photographers who, almost to a man, use Canon cameras because their long lenses are equipped with this very feature. it's also worth remembering that the Nikon flash system is widely praised - an important consideration for macro work.


Personally, I found the only slightly limiting feature of the D200 is its auto focusing system. It's good, especially with AFS lenses, but occasionally it let me down. I now use a D2xs - ironically a camera that produces slightly noisier images than the D200. However, with so much resolution available from either camera, noise is just a non issue for me within my usual working process... and the auto focus system of the D2x is fantastic.

Actually, putting camera tribalism firmly aside, I'd emphasize that all these cameras are so good, a lot comes down to personal preference in terms of how they feel and handle - having a camera you can use without having to think about it is the most important thing. I found Nikon cameras really suited me in this respect and would advise anyone considering buying a DSLR to ignore the hype and try all the competitive models within their chosen price range.

One final point. it would be sad indeed if the Canon 1Dmark2n did not outperform a D200 - it costs nearly three times as much!

Hope this is helpful.

Hmmmmm.
I think we have a confusion here with noise - as in shutter noise and mirror slap, and noise - as in the digital equivalent of grain in high ISOs.
Roger Harding

I was certainly talking about shutter noise, and thought Martin was.

Rogerdodge wrote:Hmmmmm.
I think we have a confusion here with noise - as in shutter noise and mirror slap, and noise - as in the digital equivalent of grain in high ISOs.
Roger Harding

Reading through this post I was waiting for someone
to reply with this.
I own a D70 and just bought a D200 and I am suprised by the "mirror slap" from it,if the lighting is poor it is quite loud but so far I have taken some good shots with it,and am very pleased with it.
But yes it sems in certain conditions it is rather loud but the five frames per second has worked well for me.

Regards
Steve

How funny! If Martin was referring to the sound of the shutter I obviously got completely the wrong end of the stick!

I must say that I haven't really noticed the D200 to be particularly noisy in operation, but I would say that "mirror slap" is somewhat noticeable with the D200 - the D2x is much better in this respect, but then it should be given the price.

I wouldn't have thought the noise of the shutter to be a particularly important factor in choosing a camera for insect photography - unless butterflies have been shown to be frightened by it. Would be fascinating to know if this was the case...

All the best

Malc

I was talking about signal noise but http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/phpBB2/v ... php?t=1327

Martin.

I must agree that shutter noise can be a problem.

It is particularly noticeable when photographing birds - they disappear much quicker than when I used my old EOS30 or even the wonderful old A1.

I am sure the current DSLRs are noisier than the old film cameras.

I don't know very much about this, but, do we actually NEED a shutter with digital?
Can't they just turn the sensor on and off for the appropriate time?

Mirror slap will still be a problem - it also creates blur due to the vibration transmitted to the camera body.
I didn't believe this until I set up the camera on a tripod, and did two shots - one with mirror lock-up and one normally.

There was a significant difference - try it!

However - mirror lock-up is not appropriate for butterflies (at least imagines)

Roger Harding

Malcolm Farrow wrote:Beyond 400, it's advantage Canon, unquestionably, but do many people really use ISO 800 for insect photography? I certainly find 200 is fine for 99% of my work - aren't most insects active in bright, often sunny locations after all? Typically, I work at around f11 and, at ISO 200, this usually gives me a speed of 1/60 - 1/200 second.

Actually, I usually use ISO 400. ISO 800 is not that rare if there is even thin clouds (whatever that is really called...). That comes from using 180 mm optics, which - for me anyway - require time 1/320.

Malcolm Farrow wrote:At such speeds, the addition of VR technology gives me a critical edge ...

Well, the shortest usable IS lens is 300/4, which is a bit long. The nikon 105 is nice, but it really should be 180.

Malcolm Farrow wrote:...it's also worth remembering that the Nikon flash system is widely praised - an important consideration for macro work.

For majority of people that would be the case, but most of my photography is on hiking trips, where I wouldn't even dream of carrying a tripod or flash system. In order to be really useful, the built in flash would require some diffuser, which I have not designed yet.

Rogerdodge wrote:I am sure the current DSLRs are noisier than the old film cameras.

Yes they are. They are also much faster, which means that everything must move faster inside. That is probably the cause for increased noise. I admit that there have been relatively silent, fast pro models in the past, but I would think that the pro models still are quieter.

Rogerdodge wrote:I don't know very much about this, but, do we actually NEED a shutter with digital? Can't they just turn the sensor on and off for the appropriate time?

As far as I know, we do. Specifically with the sensors used in DSLRs up to know. Maybe not in near future, though.

Rogerdodge wrote:Mirror slap will still be a problem - it also creates blur due to the vibration transmitted to the camera body.
I didn't believe this until I set up the camera on a tripod, and did two shots - one with mirror lock-up and one normally.

There was a significant difference - try it!

Indeed. I would go as far as saying the shutter noise is meaningless compared to the mirror slap. That's what I was referring to with speed earlier.

That is easy to cure with live-view, but can we call such a system DSLR anymore? Anyway, quite an improvent is required for Electronic viewfinders before they can replace the optical one.

Rogerdodge wrote:However - mirror lock-up is not appropriate for butterflies (at least imagines)

Why? I use in on set specimen all the time!

JKT

For majority of people that would be the case, but most of my photography is on hiking trips, where I wouldn't even dream of carrying a tripod or flash system. In order to be really useful, the built in flash would require some diffuser, which I have not designed yet.

http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewProdDe ... 20diffuser

Ought to do the job
HTH

Roger Harding

Maybe. It is a bit close to the flash, so it may not be that efficient.

I'd rather stick the sheet at or near the end of the lens. That would have the added benefit of working with extension tubes. I already bought an extra hood for Tokina 100. Eventually I'll remove everything except the fixing and attach a frame to hold a white fabric.