www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Hi all,

I'm in the position to be getting a new camera at last and I wondered which recommendations are best at the moment.

It will be a Canon and I have been looking at the 7D. The 5D is a little out of my price range so am thinking 7D and a macro lens.

Do any Canon users still recommend the 7D?

Many thanks,

Lee

Hi Lee - very good to hear from you again.

I'm afraid I can't help you with your question, mind...

Dave

Hi Lee,

Look no further should you decide to go down the 7D route. Its as good as new.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1704&p=95572&hilit=canon+7d#p95572

Its probably best that I don't sell its virtues as I'm selling it but Pete Eeles primarily uses a 7D ...

Let me know if you are interested.

Good hunting.

Kindest regards. Mark

Hi Lee,

Are you mistakenly missing off the mark numbers when you say 7D and 5D. The current models are 5D MK 3, and 7D MK 2. The 5D went out of production in 2008.

If you are meaning the 7D then its still a great camera, I still use one, and have no inclination to update at the moment.

Regards Gruditch

For what it's worth, I think the first question to ask is what you want to photograph and what level of flexibility you want (e.g. the ability to change lenses). It sounds like you've already asked yourself this (I assume) and have concluded that you want a Canon DSLR. I just had to say that because some of the Panasonic Lumix brigade (Neil, Mark - who also uses a 7D!) take fantastic photos with their cameras, and Vince uses a Canon Powershot G10 and also gets great photos (and I also use a G9 on occasion). If all you want to photograph is adult butterflies then these cameras are clearly an option.

Having said that, these cameras (and DLSRs) will not magically make a cluttered background uncluttered, and some "manipulation" may be needed, as demonstrated in this photo:
... where, in this case, the butterfly has been placed on a plant held in the end of a piece of cane that is itself placed in the ground - a technique that I know is frequently used by certain photographers.

However, I use a 7D because of its flexibility, despite the weight. With a 150mm macros lens (Sigma, as it happens) I get a great working distance, I can put extension tubes on to get reasonable photos of eggs, I can add a 400mm lens to photograph birds, a wide-angle lens to get more scenic shots and butterflies in context, a "regular" lens for habitat shots etc. Just remember that it has a cropped lens, so is not (in my opinion) the best option if all you want to do is landscapes.

But I've used my 7D (Mk. 1) for over 3 years now and have no plans on changing. Since I always use a tripod, then the image stabilisation offering by the Mk. 2 isn't of much use to me, so I can't see much point in upgrading. The only thing I've considered is getting a Lumix (since it is lighter to carry) when I don't need this flexibility in the field.

Cheers,

- Pete

Hi Pete,
The Canon 7D Mk II doesn't have image stabilisation (but the newer version of the Sigma 150 lens itself does). Not sure if that's what you meant?
I would concur with what has already been said by everyone on here so far and can't add much more apart from saying that carrying a load of gear around is like a disease and one which I still haven't cured myself of yet. I'm not sure I want a cure (yet), but watch out you don't finish up giving yourself a hernia (or even a double) The time will come when a smaller set-up will become very attractive and such cameras are getting better every day.

Trev

Trev

The time will come when a smaller set-up will become very attractive and such cameras are getting better every day.

Indeed, they are (I have a Lumix FZ150). But you cannot beat the laws of physics so a camera with a small sensor, although perfectly adequate in most circumstances, can never give the ultimate quality that is possible with a larger sensor camera.

One point to bear in mind though. If in error you leave your £300 bridge camera on the roof of the car, you will curse. If you leave a £1,500 large sensor camera on the roof, you will cry buckets. And at £300 a time, you can afford to replace a bridge camera more frequently with the latest model. Like the doggie slogan: "A DSLR is for life!"

Four-thirds could be reasonable compromise. I have no experience of such beasties but they do seem to be getting a good press these days.

Jack

Trev Sawyer wrote:The Canon 7D Mk II doesn't have image stabilisation (but the newer version of the Sigma 150 lens itself does). Not sure if that's what you meant?

It is - doh! Thanks Trev!

Cheers,

- Pete

Lee already uses a Canon DSLR, a 10D if I remember rightly, so not sure things like four-thirds are a option.

Regards Gruditch

I think we can now regard digital cameras as mature technology. Newer models no longer show the great leaps forward in image quality that they did, just a few years ago. A friend of mine recently upgraded from 7D to 7D MkII and finds little difference in IQ, except that high-ISO performance seems to have been improved - possibly due to better noise management in the firmware. A lot of the enhancement in newer models relates to their video capability so, if this is not your thing, they are irrelevant!

I'm currently trialling an Olympus OM-D E-M5 (micro 4/3) , which is very light but has the weather-sealed body of a premium DSLR and for which a good range of interchangeable lenses is available. So far, I am very pleased with the results and the 40-150mm (80-300, 35mm equiv) lens has very good close-up performance:
I'm not trying to deflect you from a 7D, which I believe is an excellent camera, but just pointing out that there are alternatives offering less size and weight. If you're wedded to the Canon system then you should be very happy with a 7D.

Mike

The Canon 100D is probably lighter than your Olympus Mike, and probably the same price as your Lumix Jack.

I don't think Olympus has a wide enough range of lenses, especially if wildlife photography is your thing.

Not sure why people go on about weight. I know dozens of wildlife photographers who carry around shed loads of gear with no complaints. My long lens setup weighs over 11kg, ( 25lb ) After a couple of miles its not much fun lugging it about, but I find its the best tool for the job, so its worth the inconvenience. My DSLR macro setups is lightweight in comparison, and I will happily sling on my shoulder, and carry it all day, so will my 5ft nothing wife. You can get some pretty lightweight DSLR setups if that's what you think your really need. But the other way of looking at it is, if it hurts carrying it, its doing you some good, treat it as exercise.


Regards Gruditch

Gruditch wrote:Not sure why people go on about weight.

Wait 'till you get old and unfit, then you will

Mike

Gruditch wrote:
Not sure why people go on about weight.
reply: Wait 'till you get old and unfit, then you will

Quite. A heavy weight around the neck can be agony if not impossible.

Jack

I've met some pretty inspirational people in my time. Last year I was in the bike shop bitching about training for the London 100 mile. It turned out the bloke next to me was a double amputee training for Lands End to John o'groats. A couple of years ago we made a 5am start to climb Snowden. About half way up it was getting a bit painful on my old knackered knees, when we stopped to talk to a lady on her way down, having already made her ascent. She turned out to be 82 years old.

There comes a point where age, and health catches up with all of us. But don't go assuming the guy whizzing by on the bike, or the lady climbing the mountain are young and in perfect physical health, often they are not. In fact they are sometimes very far from it.

Anyway we are getting off subject here. Did Lee mean a 7D, or a 7D MK 2.

Regards Gruditch

if he is talking about the original 7D it's probably also worth considering the 70D. Being a somewhat newer body it has a no. of advances albeit in not as pro a body.
Of course if he is talking about a 7D II & has the budget for it crack on!

Yeah I agree, although as Mike says there are not the great technological leaps forward with new models anymore. But whichever way you look at it, the 7D has been around since 2009, that's getting a bit long in the tooth. Although it would be a bit pointless updating from a 7D to a 7D MK 2. But if my 7D died, I would look at the 7D MK 2, or the 70D before another 7D.


Regards Gruditch

Thanks all for your advice.

millerd wrote:Hi Lee - very good to hear from you again.

Hi Dave, Hope to bump into you at one of our sites shortly

Gruditch wrote: Are you mistakenly missing off the mark numbers when you say 7D and 5D. The current models are 5D MK 3, and 7D MK 2.

Gary, yes I had mistakenly missed these off. I would imagine it was the 7D MK 1 I was looking at.

Pete Eeles wrote:For what it's worth, I think the first question to ask is what you want to photograph and what level of flexibility you want (e.g. the ability to change lenses). It sounds like you've already asked yourself this (I assume) and have concluded that you want a Canon DSLR. I just had to say that because some of the Panasonic Lumix brigade (Neil, Mark - who also uses a 7D!) take fantastic photos with their cameras, and Vince uses a Canon Powershot G10 and also gets great photos (and I also use a G9 on occasion). If all you want to photograph is adult butterflies then these cameras are clearly an option.

Having said that, these cameras (and DLSRs) will not magically make a cluttered background uncluttered, and some "manipulation" may be needed, as demonstrated... where, in this case, the butterfly has been placed on a plant held in the end of a piece of cane that is itself placed in the ground - a technique that I know is frequently used by certain photographers.

However, I use a 7D because of its flexibility, despite the weight. With a 150mm macros lens (Sigma, as it happens) I get a great working distance, I can put extension tubes on to get reasonable photos of eggs, I can add a 400mm lens to photograph birds, a wide-angle lens to get more scenic shots and butterflies in context, a "regular" lens for habitat shots etc. Just remember that it has a cropped lens, so is not (in my opinion) the best option if all you want to do is landscapes.

It was the flexibility I was after, plus the (I would think quite large) step up from the Canon 10D (well remembered, Gary!). That died some time ago and you may remember I have been using my phone for over a year. I've also used a Lumix and may get another at some point, but my phone takes wonderful landscapes.

With regard to the in-field manipulation at Rewell, I recognise the photographer there! I've seen the final shot too. Interesting...

So, next question is lenses... I am thinking Canon 100mm macro. Plus a small kit zoom.

I've been busy with study since last year and am looking forward to the summer off with a new toy

Best wishes,

Lee

Everyone has their personal favourites where macro lenses are concerned, usually their own. But there is not a lot to choose between all the macros available, they are all pretty damned good. The Canon 100 will serve you well. It's a bit short for me, I prefer 150 - 180mm for butterfly work, but that's just me. Canon kit zooms used to be awful, but I believe they are a lot better nowadays.

Regards Gruditch

Thanks Gary, much appreciated.

Lee