Wurzel wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:46 pm
"The D5300 is very similar to the D3400 " crickey I'm using a D60 - does that mean it's about 50 times worse

Seriously though how do you find using the 70-300 lens? I tried a zoom lens before I got my 105 but because it didn't have VR so I'm guessing that as your shots are always so crisp that your lens does?
Have a goodun
Wurzel
Cheers Wurzel, the 70-300 does indeed have VR although it does not have a switch on the lens and need to be turned on in the camera's menu.
David M wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 7:36 pm
Great lunar shots, Neil. I'm itching for an opportunity to take some myself but Swansea, unfortunately, is a cloudy place and I will probably have to bide my time.
Thanks David. Lots of cloud here lately as well and plenty more in the forecast ahead.
Changing Cameras.
Last year I changed cameras and I thought that I would set down some of my thoughts on how I found using a DSLR for the first time compared to the bridge camera that I had been using. I will say upfront that I am in no way an expert in cameras or photography and have little interest in the technical aspects in themselves so some of what I say may not sound ‘right’ to the experts.
Up until early last year I had been using a Panasonic Lumix FZ200 bridge camera which had served me well for a few years. This had replaced a FZ150 which had taken a few knocks and on which the zoom mechanism had become a bit rough and erratic although I was still using this camera with a close-up lens attached to take photos of the moths from my garden trap.
My daughter Sarah had been using a Nikon D3400, mostly for landscape and general photography, but in April upgraded to a mirror-less system camera and asked me if I wanted to have the D3400 to try out.
My intention was to use the D3400 alongside my FZ200 for the rest of the season and to see which I preferred, particularly as I had never used a DSLR before. The kit lens that came with the D3400 was an 18-55mm which is not much use for butterflies so, given that the camera was a freebie, and after a bit of research, I splashed out on a Nikkor 70-300 lens.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/JAA829DA-AF-P- ... 141&sr=8-4
This turned out to be a good walkaround lens for most of my outings which tend to take place at times when butterflies are most active, and the 200 to 300mm focal length of this lens gives me a good working distance. A couple of months later I also treated myself to a Sigma 105 macro lens for when circumstances allowed me to get closer to the subject, for example butterflies on cooler days or moths from the garden trap.
I will also mention that the D3400 is an APS-C format camera. This means that the sensor gives a crop factor (on Nikon cameras) of 1.5x. On the 70-300 lens this gives an equivalent focal length of 105-450mm and on the Sigma 105 an equivalent of just under 160mm. In comparison the FZ200 has a 24x zoom range equivalent to 25-600mm.
After using the D3400 for the rest of the season, most of which involved some trial and error with the settings, this is what I found;
There is not much difference in size and weight between the D3400 body and the FZ200 but adding the 70-300 lens to the D3400 makes it a bit bigger and heavier but still light enough to be a good walk around combo.
The D3400 has a fixed screen and I found there were a few occasions when I missed the variable angle screen on the FZ200 such as stretching up to take photos above my head or from low down without kneeling or lying down.
Being a DSLR, the Nikon has an optical viewfinder which is superior to the electronic viewfinder on the FZ200. I found myself using the viewfinder most of the time on the D3400 as opposed to lining the shot up on the screen which I did most of the time with the Lumix.
The FZ200 has a slightly longer reach at maximum zoom but in practice there was little in it.
Due to the larger sensor compared with the FZ200, the D3400 is much better at handling contrast between light and dark areas. I found this particularly noticeable when photographing both light and dark butterflies (for example Orange-tip and Peacock) on the same day when I would need to change the exposure compensation on the FZ200 but far less so with the D3400.
The D3400 can take a larger photo which means that I can crop further if required and still retain a reasonable image. Useful on those hot days when it is difficult to get close to butterflies.
The D3400 is faster in both focusing and taking the photo which meant that I got some shots which I may have missed with the FZ200. Also, focusing in general seemed to be better and I managed a larger proportion of ‘keepers’ with the D3400.
Overall, I think that the quality of my photos with the D3400 was very similar to what I was achieving with the FZ200 but the Nikon gave me more options and enabled me to get some photos that I may have missed or struggled to get with the FZ200.
All things considered, I found that I used the D3400 exclusively for the rest of the season and although I usually carried the FZ200 as well, I didn’t find myself taking it out of the bag.
The shot below shows the FZ200 (left) and the D3400 with the 70-300 lens attached, in both cases with the lens hoods attached which is how I always carry them around, and shows the difference in size.
A lot of things with cameras and photography can be down to personal tastes and other people may well have different thoughts to me. In my own case I have now become converted to using the Nikon, although I will keep the FZ200 as a backup.
I mentioned in my reply to Wurzel above, that my son Chris has now also given me his old D5300 since he upgraded to a D7500. The D5300 is pretty much a D3400 with a variable angle screen and a few other minor differences.
This also means that I have ‘inherited’ both Nikon cameras from my grown-up kids which has obviously saved me a few bob and without which I probably wouldn't have bothered changing at all...at least not yet.
Anyway, a new season is creeping closer so let’s hope that we all get plenty of chance to get out and photograph some nice butterflies with whatever cameras we use.
Bye for now,
Neil.