I have had my Samsung Digimax L85 compact for a year or so, and since I am saving money, I want an upgrade to a D-SLR. I probably won't have enough money till January becuase being a student, not exactly easy. Anyway, I am looking to spend around just over £800 on a camera.
I was leaning towards Canon but not yet sure. Any advice, personal things you guys could add? Still got time to decide.
New Camera
-
Dave McCormick
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:46 pm
- Location: Co Down, Northern Ireland
- Contact:
New Camera
Cheers all,
My Website: My new website: http://daveslepidoptera.com/ - Last Update: 11/10/2011
My Nature videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/DynamixWarePro
My Website: My new website: http://daveslepidoptera.com/ - Last Update: 11/10/2011
My Nature videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/DynamixWarePro
I reckon you'll be happier with cheap camera: good lens rather than expensive camera: poor lens!
So how about the Canon 400D + Sigma 150mm Macro. That should fall under your £800 budget if you shop around. Or you could go Nikon and get the same Sigma Lens. Nikon do a 105mm Vibration Reduction Macro lens (Canon don't yet) too, so if you're doing a lot hand held, this may be a consideration... put you'll be looking more at £850 for camera and lens.
ALL DSLRS are good cameras and the price difference between models does not really reflect the difference in quality, which is negligible...
I use a Canon 300D (Very cheap now!!) and can produce perfectly sharp pictures, with great colour.
So how about the Canon 400D + Sigma 150mm Macro. That should fall under your £800 budget if you shop around. Or you could go Nikon and get the same Sigma Lens. Nikon do a 105mm Vibration Reduction Macro lens (Canon don't yet) too, so if you're doing a lot hand held, this may be a consideration... put you'll be looking more at £850 for camera and lens.
ALL DSLRS are good cameras and the price difference between models does not really reflect the difference in quality, which is negligible...
I use a Canon 300D (Very cheap now!!) and can produce perfectly sharp pictures, with great colour.
-
Dave McCormick
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:46 pm
- Location: Co Down, Northern Ireland
- Contact:
I was thinking of a 400D but we shall see nearer time. I do take a lot of pics and I find it hard getting close to some species with a compact, e.g. DG Fratillaries and orange-tips etc... so I decided while I have the money, I could upgrade and get the shots I want with less problems.
Cheers all,
My Website: My new website: http://daveslepidoptera.com/ - Last Update: 11/10/2011
My Nature videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/DynamixWarePro
My Website: My new website: http://daveslepidoptera.com/ - Last Update: 11/10/2011
My Nature videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/DynamixWarePro
RE: DSLR and Bridge Cameras - Lumix FZ50
Like many people these days, I have left the old 35mm SLR behind in the cupboard and embraced digital. Well, having done a lot of research and limited like most people by budget, I have explored 2 "Bridge" cameras. My first was a Minolta Z5, which gave 10x zoom and Macro and Supermacro settings, with 5MP resolution. In itself, it was a good camera - I still like the colour management in low light to give a nice soft feel to the evening light - and cheap at less than £300.
The next move was the Panasonic Lumix FZ50, with their own-brand macro lens. This is a 10MP camera with 12x Zoom and a Leica lens system - the results can be seen in the various competitions on ukbutterflies - and can be had for less than £350 all-in these days. Although it may not quite give the flexibility a true DSLR gives (I can only get to F11 for instance), once you learn the set-ups and settings, it gives superb results, with a little persistence and perspiration.....
To reach an equivalent with a DSLR would be at least 3 times that price (Nikon D40 plus macro for example) - not least because the lenses for macro work ARE expensive.
So if you are not sure - take a look at the Lumix - a good compromise for the budget conscious.
The next move was the Panasonic Lumix FZ50, with their own-brand macro lens. This is a 10MP camera with 12x Zoom and a Leica lens system - the results can be seen in the various competitions on ukbutterflies - and can be had for less than £350 all-in these days. Although it may not quite give the flexibility a true DSLR gives (I can only get to F11 for instance), once you learn the set-ups and settings, it gives superb results, with a little persistence and perspiration.....
To reach an equivalent with a DSLR would be at least 3 times that price (Nikon D40 plus macro for example) - not least because the lenses for macro work ARE expensive.
So if you are not sure - take a look at the Lumix - a good compromise for the budget conscious.
"Conservation starts in small places, close to home..."
Look around for offers for the Sony A100 DSLR. It has very good sensor resolution, built in image stabilisation, and a host of cheap high quality lenses on ebay. The only negative that I have seen with mine is that the sensor is noisy at iso1600 but this is partly negated by the sensor based image stabilisation. The 18-70 kit lens is much better than that for most other manufacturers and is image stabilised right away because that function is built into the camera.
I recently bought a s/h Sigma 400mm F5.6 for it fo £65 on ebay. How much would an image stabilised version have costed for the Canon?
I recently bought a s/h Sigma 400mm F5.6 for it fo £65 on ebay. How much would an image stabilised version have costed for the Canon?
...
I have been thinking about this myself - Which of the major players (Canon, Nikon, etc) has Image Stabilisation (IS) In-camera, rather than In-lens?
With my humble FZ50 I can hand-hold down to 1/25th and still get good results - would I be able to do that with a Nikon D200, WITHOUT the IS In-lens capacity?
With my humble FZ50 I can hand-hold down to 1/25th and still get good results - would I be able to do that with a Nikon D200, WITHOUT the IS In-lens capacity?
"Conservation starts in small places, close to home..."
...
I did not mean "Don't go DSLR" I was asking if the IS in-camera in the FZ50 (et alia) is matched by anything in say a Nikon D200 and not achieved outside the camera. Looking at the Sony it DOES have IS in-camera...
"Conservation starts in small places, close to home..."
-
Jack Harrison
- Posts: 4709
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:55 pm
- Location: Nairn, Highland
- Contact:
There can be little doubt that DSLRs produce the finest results – but a cost. Not only are they more expensive but are heavier and need extra lenses. This makes them less practical to use. I have for example, seen photographers prone on the ground taking pictures of Purple Emperor. Many of us find that too much effort even though the results might be marginally better.
The high end compacts are now superb. A look at Steve's Digicams: http://www.steves-digicams.com/ shows that the best compacts rival DSLRs in terms of resolution at a fraction of the cost (and don't need all those extra heavy lenses). Compare for example the images from the 12 megapixel Canon Powershot A650 IS with the very best DSLRs. Frankly, there's not a lot in it. Incidentally, I have a Canon S3 IS but although good, does have its limitations. I don't recommend it.
Now to Nick's comment about minimum aperture and depth of field. There is a superb website “Cambridge in Colour” with lots of technical data and tutorials http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm This goes into things like depth of field and diffraction and explains why with smaller sensors, it is not feasible to have very small apertures as diffraction spoils any gain in depth of field.
I make a little digression here. Sensor sizes are quoted using the most illogical system, eg 1 / 2.5” or 1 / 1.7”. It has taken me ages to figure out what these mean but there is some web help. In simple terms, 1 / 2.5 means that the sensor diagonal is 1 divided by 2.5 which equals 0.4 inches. Why they can't use that much simpler system is beyond me (and indeed, some of the others web authors). Conveniently, 0.4 inches = 1 centimetre. So a sensor quoted as 1 / 2.5 is 1 cm, 1 / 1.8 is approx 1.4 cms and so on.
The smaller the sensor, the greater the depth of field for a GIVEN APERTURE. Thus a 35 mm camera has a better depth of filed than an old Plate Camera. In my youth, this was hailed as one of the advantages of what was then called “miniature format” (35 mm). But of course it's not quite that straightforward – see those tutorials.
I am a great fan of Tim Munsey: http://www.wildphotolife.co.uk/
When I wrote to him, he gave me the best piece of advice I have ever received. Provided you have enough megapixels to be able to crop, then you can achieve greater depth of field by NOT filling the frame. So, for example, you fill the frame with a Meadow Brown. The depth of field might be say 1 cm. If you zoom out (or move futher away) so that your Meadow Brown fills only half the frame, you get FOUR TIMES the depth of field. But of course, you might need to crop to half-size so that the butterfly now fills the (cropped) frame. Even so, you will in practice have doubled the depth of field. But as I indicated, you do need a camera with sufficient megapixels to be able to make such a crop and still retain an acceptably large picture.
There is no simply answer to what camera is best or indeed what type is best. One thing I would be absolutely insistent upon is some form of image stabilization. With my S3, I can use the most incredibly slow shutter speeds and not get shake. This in turn means I can use lower ISO settings and minimise noise.
Good luck.
Jack Harrison
The high end compacts are now superb. A look at Steve's Digicams: http://www.steves-digicams.com/ shows that the best compacts rival DSLRs in terms of resolution at a fraction of the cost (and don't need all those extra heavy lenses). Compare for example the images from the 12 megapixel Canon Powershot A650 IS with the very best DSLRs. Frankly, there's not a lot in it. Incidentally, I have a Canon S3 IS but although good, does have its limitations. I don't recommend it.
Now to Nick's comment about minimum aperture and depth of field. There is a superb website “Cambridge in Colour” with lots of technical data and tutorials http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm This goes into things like depth of field and diffraction and explains why with smaller sensors, it is not feasible to have very small apertures as diffraction spoils any gain in depth of field.
I make a little digression here. Sensor sizes are quoted using the most illogical system, eg 1 / 2.5” or 1 / 1.7”. It has taken me ages to figure out what these mean but there is some web help. In simple terms, 1 / 2.5 means that the sensor diagonal is 1 divided by 2.5 which equals 0.4 inches. Why they can't use that much simpler system is beyond me (and indeed, some of the others web authors). Conveniently, 0.4 inches = 1 centimetre. So a sensor quoted as 1 / 2.5 is 1 cm, 1 / 1.8 is approx 1.4 cms and so on.
The smaller the sensor, the greater the depth of field for a GIVEN APERTURE. Thus a 35 mm camera has a better depth of filed than an old Plate Camera. In my youth, this was hailed as one of the advantages of what was then called “miniature format” (35 mm). But of course it's not quite that straightforward – see those tutorials.
I am a great fan of Tim Munsey: http://www.wildphotolife.co.uk/
When I wrote to him, he gave me the best piece of advice I have ever received. Provided you have enough megapixels to be able to crop, then you can achieve greater depth of field by NOT filling the frame. So, for example, you fill the frame with a Meadow Brown. The depth of field might be say 1 cm. If you zoom out (or move futher away) so that your Meadow Brown fills only half the frame, you get FOUR TIMES the depth of field. But of course, you might need to crop to half-size so that the butterfly now fills the (cropped) frame. Even so, you will in practice have doubled the depth of field. But as I indicated, you do need a camera with sufficient megapixels to be able to make such a crop and still retain an acceptably large picture.
There is no simply answer to what camera is best or indeed what type is best. One thing I would be absolutely insistent upon is some form of image stabilization. With my S3, I can use the most incredibly slow shutter speeds and not get shake. This in turn means I can use lower ISO settings and minimise noise.
Good luck.
Jack Harrison
I've never heard an SLR described as impractical before... they are inherently more flexible than any other format of camera. The range of accessories, additional lenses, teleconverters, tubes, remote releases, filters, etc, etc, etc, means that you can use the same camera in ANY situation. Admittedly, with a little investment. You can even buy things like Zig-view that with it's rotating screen, means you can see what you're photographing without having to lie prone on the floor.jackharr wrote:There can be little doubt that DSLRs produce the finest results – but at a cost. Not only are they more expensive but are heavier and need extra lenses. This makes them less practical to use.
...or learn to use your tripod, which isn't as impractical as many people seem to think. With a bit of practice, a rotating arm and quick release head; you can frame a shot in seconds... but let's not kick off this argument again!!jackharr wrote:One thing I would be absolutely insistent upon is some form of image stabilization. With my S3, I can use the most incredibly slow shutter speeds and not get shake. This in turn means I can use lower ISO settings and minimise noise.
Dave, lot's of opinions here; consider the factors that are important to you and make your decision based on those. There is no right or wrong, it's all down to preference.
Chris
...
"....with a little investment." I think is the most telling statement in all of this discussion.
The marginal benefits of image quality in DSLR's particularly for butterflies (shot in good light mostly at ISO 100 or 200) balanced against weight (have you tried to hand-hold a Nikon D200+macro? A brick is lighter!) and usability are making me seriously wait before I go the whole hog!
I can get underneath & close-up to my subjects without a tripod or monopod with my little set-up and hand-hold at low-speeds. OK, for the bigger more arboreal butterflies you do need the zoom - but these compacts have up to 12x (and more) zoom once you take the macro off, so that gets rid of the need to lug more lenses around.
As I said, I don't deny that the quality that can be achieved by use of a good DSLR may be better than my FZ50. However, once you get to know your camera a bit better, as jackharr says, there are marginal improvements that can be made to image quality using the in-camera options, that will push the quality achieved by a DSLR which has not been optimised for the task in-hand!
BTW - I recently joined the Cambridge Camera Club - and critical analysis of my butterfly pictures was mostly aimed at post-production and composition. The technical side of image sharpness, depth of field, noise, and colour reproduction, etc was generally OK. As a guy there said, "...we have had Competition winners with images taken on a 3MP compact, so equipment is not necessarily the key!" :)
The marginal benefits of image quality in DSLR's particularly for butterflies (shot in good light mostly at ISO 100 or 200) balanced against weight (have you tried to hand-hold a Nikon D200+macro? A brick is lighter!) and usability are making me seriously wait before I go the whole hog!
I can get underneath & close-up to my subjects without a tripod or monopod with my little set-up and hand-hold at low-speeds. OK, for the bigger more arboreal butterflies you do need the zoom - but these compacts have up to 12x (and more) zoom once you take the macro off, so that gets rid of the need to lug more lenses around.
As I said, I don't deny that the quality that can be achieved by use of a good DSLR may be better than my FZ50. However, once you get to know your camera a bit better, as jackharr says, there are marginal improvements that can be made to image quality using the in-camera options, that will push the quality achieved by a DSLR which has not been optimised for the task in-hand!
BTW - I recently joined the Cambridge Camera Club - and critical analysis of my butterfly pictures was mostly aimed at post-production and composition. The technical side of image sharpness, depth of field, noise, and colour reproduction, etc was generally OK. As a guy there said, "...we have had Competition winners with images taken on a 3MP compact, so equipment is not necessarily the key!" :)
"Conservation starts in small places, close to home..."
-
Jack Harrison
- Posts: 4709
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:55 pm
- Location: Nairn, Highland
- Contact:
Yes, I stick with my view that DSLRs might be less practical on occasions. Carrying around a lot of extra lenses, tripod etc, is precisely why DSLRs are awkward for some people. I have an arthritic spine, particularly neck (ankylosing spondylitis) and the weight of all that kit is simply impractical. I used to have the “works” in the past when a slide photographer but circumstances have changed (as have finances since retirement).
A level playing field.
Consideration could be given to having a subsection of the photo competitions on ukbutterflies that reflects the financial and practical limitations that some people are obliged to accept. For example, a competition where entries all have to be resized to say 640 * 480 maximum would negate the advantages that the expensive DSLRs currently have (and usually are the winners). This competition would have to rely on matters OTHER than technical quality – composition, the telling of a story, etc
Jack
A level playing field.
Consideration could be given to having a subsection of the photo competitions on ukbutterflies that reflects the financial and practical limitations that some people are obliged to accept. For example, a competition where entries all have to be resized to say 640 * 480 maximum would negate the advantages that the expensive DSLRs currently have (and usually are the winners). This competition would have to rely on matters OTHER than technical quality – composition, the telling of a story, etc
Jack
new camera
hi dave
got to add my comments to this debate ,buy the best you can with what you have to spend ,if your after quality images you need ,a slr and a macro and a tripod ,youll be amazed at the images, get paraell to your subject and youll be able to count the hairs and scales on there wings .
i would be amazed if you hand held a camera and shot with 1/25 and got anything sharp ,it just can not be done, when someone says the results are fine i think there glossing over the truth, it wont be critcally sharp and thats what you ultimatley want and can get if you buy the correct equipment and apply some feild craft which you already have ,photography is not cheap, but you will spend more in petrol chasing around the country ,than on equipment ,and when you get home tired ,but looking forward to seeing the images from the days work, you wont thank anyone when there not what you wished for, and you have to start saving once more, the 40d or any cannon or nikon with a sigma canon or nikon macro lens on the end and a good sturdy tripod thats the way to go
one gooden is worth a thousand almosts
best
eric
got to add my comments to this debate ,buy the best you can with what you have to spend ,if your after quality images you need ,a slr and a macro and a tripod ,youll be amazed at the images, get paraell to your subject and youll be able to count the hairs and scales on there wings .
i would be amazed if you hand held a camera and shot with 1/25 and got anything sharp ,it just can not be done, when someone says the results are fine i think there glossing over the truth, it wont be critcally sharp and thats what you ultimatley want and can get if you buy the correct equipment and apply some feild craft which you already have ,photography is not cheap, but you will spend more in petrol chasing around the country ,than on equipment ,and when you get home tired ,but looking forward to seeing the images from the days work, you wont thank anyone when there not what you wished for, and you have to start saving once more, the 40d or any cannon or nikon with a sigma canon or nikon macro lens on the end and a good sturdy tripod thats the way to go
one gooden is worth a thousand almosts
best
eric
The in-camera image stabilisation works well hand-held @1/25
Well, I was quite pleased on a dull day.
"Conservation starts in small places, close to home..."
-
Gruditch
- Moderator & Stock Contributor
- Posts: 1689
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 3:30 pm
- Location: Hampshire
- Contact:
Very good Nick, but not pin sharp 
And Jack, a seperate comp for none D-SLRs, you know as well as I do, that just because someone has a D-SLR it does not mean they will take superior shots
.
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
Gruditch
And Jack, a seperate comp for none D-SLRs, you know as well as I do, that just because someone has a D-SLR it does not mean they will take superior shots
.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
Gruditch