Digital SLR Advice... please!
Discussion
I am an audio professional by trade so please be gentle with me as I bought my first camera which wasnt a point and shoot this Christmas!
I got a Fuji S8000FD, which is like a £200 'baby dslr' with one lens, but it has quite a good range up to 18x optical zoom, with the 35mm equivalent of 27-486mm and 8MP.
I have having some great fun with it taking photos on my tripod in my conservatory just of the birds and wildlife in my garden and I am getting some results that I pretty pleased with. However I wont embarrass myself in posting them here as compared to some of you guy's photos, they are a bit basic!
The problem I am finding is although I am as close as the wildlife will let me get, right up to the window, only 5 or 6 metres away, I am constantly using it at the limit of the optical zoom range and still the subject - a bird (of the avian kind!) is still a bit small in the shot without either yukky digital zoom or cropping later.
My question is, I am having some great fun, but I think I would look at something better. I know that you can get *huge* lenses to get photos from miles away, but is there anything reasonably prices which will let me do this better?
I have seen the specs for the Canon EOS 450D which when it comes out looks great - 12MP for a start before the rest of the specs.
I see it does the RAW file type. My current camera only does jpg. I have seen the thread with the miraculously saved photos because they were captured in RAW. What is this and how does it work?
Secondly, although I quoted the lens focal lengths of 27-486mm to be frank, I have no idea what this means.. All I know is that I need much more zoom! For those that do telephoto wildlife shots, what kind of lens would I be looking at? I see the 405D does a 1.6X conversion, I guess this will help what I want to do somewhat?
Thanks in advance for anyone who has read this far, and can impart even the most basic knowledge!
I got a Fuji S8000FD, which is like a £200 'baby dslr' with one lens, but it has quite a good range up to 18x optical zoom, with the 35mm equivalent of 27-486mm and 8MP.
I have having some great fun with it taking photos on my tripod in my conservatory just of the birds and wildlife in my garden and I am getting some results that I pretty pleased with. However I wont embarrass myself in posting them here as compared to some of you guy's photos, they are a bit basic!
The problem I am finding is although I am as close as the wildlife will let me get, right up to the window, only 5 or 6 metres away, I am constantly using it at the limit of the optical zoom range and still the subject - a bird (of the avian kind!) is still a bit small in the shot without either yukky digital zoom or cropping later.
My question is, I am having some great fun, but I think I would look at something better. I know that you can get *huge* lenses to get photos from miles away, but is there anything reasonably prices which will let me do this better?
I have seen the specs for the Canon EOS 450D which when it comes out looks great - 12MP for a start before the rest of the specs.
I see it does the RAW file type. My current camera only does jpg. I have seen the thread with the miraculously saved photos because they were captured in RAW. What is this and how does it work?
Secondly, although I quoted the lens focal lengths of 27-486mm to be frank, I have no idea what this means.. All I know is that I need much more zoom! For those that do telephoto wildlife shots, what kind of lens would I be looking at? I see the 405D does a 1.6X conversion, I guess this will help what I want to do somewhat?
Thanks in advance for anyone who has read this far, and can impart even the most basic knowledge!
RAWis just that, the raw data straight off the sensor (almost) before the camera processes it into a jpg.
For a lot of reasons raw is seen to be better. its a 12(or14) bit lossless file rather than jpg's 8bit lossy compression.
This allows you to fix the white balance, fix exposure issues(better), sharpen as per needs etc. It also takes up more space and needs to be worked on , its not fow out of the camera shots.
As for the birds your camera (which isnt a dSLR at all) gives the equivelant of a 300mm lens on a canon 350d, this is usualy ok for wildlife but on the shorter side, 400-500 is better, but a good long lens for an SLR will cost a lot - likely more than the 400d etc.
For a lot of reasons raw is seen to be better. its a 12(or14) bit lossless file rather than jpg's 8bit lossy compression.
This allows you to fix the white balance, fix exposure issues(better), sharpen as per needs etc. It also takes up more space and needs to be worked on , its not fow out of the camera shots.
As for the birds your camera (which isnt a dSLR at all) gives the equivelant of a 300mm lens on a canon 350d, this is usualy ok for wildlife but on the shorter side, 400-500 is better, but a good long lens for an SLR will cost a lot - likely more than the 400d etc.
Hi Justin,
To fill the frame with a sparrow from 50 yards is really demanding too much I feel. To do it properly you'll be faced with the monstrous costs associated with fast sports lenses - well into four figures before you've even started. Strapping teleconverters on is all very well but the longer the focal length the more light you lose and the more wobbly it gets. Coupled with the magnification, this means shutter speed and hence camera-shake will start to be a problem.
How about experimenting with a remote set-up, where the camera is much closer to the subject and fired by some kind of trigger? This isn't something I know much about but it can be done and I'm sure somebody will be able to suggest something - IR beam etc.
To fill the frame with a sparrow from 50 yards is really demanding too much I feel. To do it properly you'll be faced with the monstrous costs associated with fast sports lenses - well into four figures before you've even started. Strapping teleconverters on is all very well but the longer the focal length the more light you lose and the more wobbly it gets. Coupled with the magnification, this means shutter speed and hence camera-shake will start to be a problem.
How about experimenting with a remote set-up, where the camera is much closer to the subject and fired by some kind of trigger? This isn't something I know much about but it can be done and I'm sure somebody will be able to suggest something - IR beam etc.
According to my chum who "does" a lot of wildlife you need to spend a lot of time and effort on sorting out your "hide". And then you need to spend a fortune on hardware... his thing is photographing deer and he uses a Nikon D3 with a 400mm f2.8 lens. All up that'll be £10k - thank you!
That said you might get lucky - robins always seem pretty tame to me and I guess one might get close enough.
That said you might get lucky - robins always seem pretty tame to me and I guess one might get close enough.
Not cheap, but cheaper than a mega-lens...
http://www.wildlifewatchingsupplies.co.uk/index.ht...
Hit Popular Products > Dome Hide
Martin.
http://www.wildlifewatchingsupplies.co.uk/index.ht...
Hit Popular Products > Dome Hide
Martin.
Edited by V6GTO on Tuesday 29th January 07:02
GetCarter posted a thread about 2 years ago (can't find it though), where he'd set up some remote control photography on his bird table. With any luck, he'll show up here and say how he did it.
What sort of birds are they? We've managed to get all the garden birds; robins, tits, finches, sparrows, dunnocks to come to a window feeder. Plant some decent cover (a berberis in our case) near the window, put a feeder in the bush and another one on the window. Make sure they are always full, chuck plenty of food around the floor for the ground feeders (we get blackbirds and thrushes).
Worth a try.
What sort of birds are they? We've managed to get all the garden birds; robins, tits, finches, sparrows, dunnocks to come to a window feeder. Plant some decent cover (a berberis in our case) near the window, put a feeder in the bush and another one on the window. Make sure they are always full, chuck plenty of food around the floor for the ground feeders (we get blackbirds and thrushes).
Worth a try.
Justin,
Have a wander onto www.ephotozine.com check out the members galleries and the forums. You can search the forums for specific subjects and there has been lots of discussions on wildlife photography and they have regular group meets at wildlife venues. They are currently arranging one to the Santiago Project in Hertfordshire to photograph the big cats
Carl
Have a wander onto www.ephotozine.com check out the members galleries and the forums. You can search the forums for specific subjects and there has been lots of discussions on wildlife photography and they have regular group meets at wildlife venues. They are currently arranging one to the Santiago Project in Hertfordshire to photograph the big cats
Carl
sidaorb said:
Justin,
Have a wander onto www.ephotozine.com check out the members galleries and the forums. You can search the forums for specific subjects and there has been lots of discussions on wildlife photography and they have regular group meets at wildlife venues. They are currently arranging one to the Santiago Project in Hertfordshire to photograph the big cats
Carl
Enjoy that, the Clouded Leopards are just fantasticHave a wander onto www.ephotozine.com check out the members galleries and the forums. You can search the forums for specific subjects and there has been lots of discussions on wildlife photography and they have regular group meets at wildlife venues. They are currently arranging one to the Santiago Project in Hertfordshire to photograph the big cats
Carl
Chris
Dogsey said:
CVP said:
sidaorb said:
... the Santiago Project in Hertfordshire ...
Enjoy that, the Clouded Leopards are just fantasticChris
Edited by Dogsey on Tuesday 29th January 12:21
Also there are some other leopards, I think they are Asian ones, plus some black leopards (black panthers) and a lovely puma.
Bizzarely it's one blokes house and the animals are all in his back garden (suitably housed). I know he lets lots of photographic groups come as it helps to pay for the running of the site. He's been very succesful in getting the Clouded Leopards to breed and works with other conservation bodies around the world.
We went with Wild Arena (something like www.wildarena.com) when the Black Leopards had just had a litter of young.
have to insert one or two images from the day
Hi Guys,
Thanks to everyone who has contributed, just spent about an hour or so following up the links!
The hide is a good idea, however this is kind of what I have been using. What I have found is that the wildlife has actually got tame enough, most likely due to the birdseed put out on the table so that as long as I stay still, they come to the table and feeders which are no more than 5 metres away and completely ignore me!
I think Simpo's analogy was the sparrow filling the frame from 50 yards, I realise the cost of that is going to be prohibative. At the moment though, with full optical zoom the sparrow would be about 5% of the frame from 5 yards away. At that distance, I find myself cropping the photo to around a quarter or the original size to frame it nicely. Of course both digital zoom and cropping that much and enlarging introduces pixellation to the stage where the photo loses any decent quality.
I have had a look at the Sigma 500mm lenses as well, and I see what you mean about the size of it! However, I have checked Ebay, and they are being sold in the UK at £469 and from Hong Kong for £360 including delivery.
I see that the 450D has a 1.6X conversion factor - is this as simple as this sounds to increase the magnification further?
Or, would I see the benefit over what I have (zoomwise) with a 400mm lens with the 1.6X conversion of the 450D?
Thanks to everyone who has contributed, just spent about an hour or so following up the links!
The hide is a good idea, however this is kind of what I have been using. What I have found is that the wildlife has actually got tame enough, most likely due to the birdseed put out on the table so that as long as I stay still, they come to the table and feeders which are no more than 5 metres away and completely ignore me!
I think Simpo's analogy was the sparrow filling the frame from 50 yards, I realise the cost of that is going to be prohibative. At the moment though, with full optical zoom the sparrow would be about 5% of the frame from 5 yards away. At that distance, I find myself cropping the photo to around a quarter or the original size to frame it nicely. Of course both digital zoom and cropping that much and enlarging introduces pixellation to the stage where the photo loses any decent quality.
I have had a look at the Sigma 500mm lenses as well, and I see what you mean about the size of it! However, I have checked Ebay, and they are being sold in the UK at £469 and from Hong Kong for £360 including delivery.
I see that the 450D has a 1.6X conversion factor - is this as simple as this sounds to increase the magnification further?
Or, would I see the benefit over what I have (zoomwise) with a 400mm lens with the 1.6X conversion of the 450D?
JustinP1 said:
Hi Guys,
Thanks to everyone who has contributed, just spent about an hour or so following up the links!
The hide is a good idea, however this is kind of what I have been using. What I have found is that the wildlife has actually got tame enough, most likely due to the birdseed put out on the table so that as long as I stay still, they come to the table and feeders which are no more than 5 metres away and completely ignore me!
I think Simpo's analogy was the sparrow filling the frame from 50 yards, I realise the cost of that is going to be prohibative. At the moment though, with full optical zoom the sparrow would be about 5% of the frame from 5 yards away. At that distance, I find myself cropping the photo to around a quarter or the original size to frame it nicely. Of course both digital zoom and cropping that much and enlarging introduces pixellation to the stage where the photo loses any decent quality.
I have had a look at the Sigma 500mm lenses as well, and I see what you mean about the size of it! However, I have checked Ebay, and they are being sold in the UK at £469 and from Hong Kong for £360 including delivery.
I see that the 450D has a 1.6X conversion factor - is this as simple as this sounds to increase the magnification further?
Or, would I see the benefit over what I have (zoomwise) with a 400mm lens with the 1.6X conversion of the 450D?
A 1.6x conversion factor is in relation to shooting on 35mm film. So if Fuji are quoting yours to have an equiv max length of 486 (presuambly against 35mm too), then if you bought that bigma 50-500 you would have the equiv of 500x1.6 max reach. i.e. 800mm!Thanks to everyone who has contributed, just spent about an hour or so following up the links!
The hide is a good idea, however this is kind of what I have been using. What I have found is that the wildlife has actually got tame enough, most likely due to the birdseed put out on the table so that as long as I stay still, they come to the table and feeders which are no more than 5 metres away and completely ignore me!
I think Simpo's analogy was the sparrow filling the frame from 50 yards, I realise the cost of that is going to be prohibative. At the moment though, with full optical zoom the sparrow would be about 5% of the frame from 5 yards away. At that distance, I find myself cropping the photo to around a quarter or the original size to frame it nicely. Of course both digital zoom and cropping that much and enlarging introduces pixellation to the stage where the photo loses any decent quality.
I have had a look at the Sigma 500mm lenses as well, and I see what you mean about the size of it! However, I have checked Ebay, and they are being sold in the UK at £469 and from Hong Kong for £360 including delivery.
I see that the 450D has a 1.6X conversion factor - is this as simple as this sounds to increase the magnification further?
Or, would I see the benefit over what I have (zoomwise) with a 400mm lens with the 1.6X conversion of the 450D?
I would do some googling on the lens and the keyword 'birding' before buying as I suggested it having seen it mentioned but would hate for it to not meet your expectations. That is a massive amount of zoom so stability will be an issue, especially if trying to follow a moving bird. Not to mention the weight. Also it doesn't have image stabilisation which isn't necessarily a prob if you are working on a tripod.
DanH said:
JustinP1 said:
Hi Guys,
Thanks to everyone who has contributed, just spent about an hour or so following up the links!
The hide is a good idea, however this is kind of what I have been using. What I have found is that the wildlife has actually got tame enough, most likely due to the birdseed put out on the table so that as long as I stay still, they come to the table and feeders which are no more than 5 metres away and completely ignore me!
I think Simpo's analogy was the sparrow filling the frame from 50 yards, I realise the cost of that is going to be prohibative. At the moment though, with full optical zoom the sparrow would be about 5% of the frame from 5 yards away. At that distance, I find myself cropping the photo to around a quarter or the original size to frame it nicely. Of course both digital zoom and cropping that much and enlarging introduces pixellation to the stage where the photo loses any decent quality.
I have had a look at the Sigma 500mm lenses as well, and I see what you mean about the size of it! However, I have checked Ebay, and they are being sold in the UK at £469 and from Hong Kong for £360 including delivery.
I see that the 450D has a 1.6X conversion factor - is this as simple as this sounds to increase the magnification further?
Or, would I see the benefit over what I have (zoomwise) with a 400mm lens with the 1.6X conversion of the 450D?
A 1.6x conversion factor is in relation to shooting on 35mm film. So if Fuji are quoting yours to have an equiv max length of 486 (presuambly against 35mm too), then if you bought that bigma 50-500 you would have the equiv of 500x1.6 max reach. i.e. 800mm!Thanks to everyone who has contributed, just spent about an hour or so following up the links!
The hide is a good idea, however this is kind of what I have been using. What I have found is that the wildlife has actually got tame enough, most likely due to the birdseed put out on the table so that as long as I stay still, they come to the table and feeders which are no more than 5 metres away and completely ignore me!
I think Simpo's analogy was the sparrow filling the frame from 50 yards, I realise the cost of that is going to be prohibative. At the moment though, with full optical zoom the sparrow would be about 5% of the frame from 5 yards away. At that distance, I find myself cropping the photo to around a quarter or the original size to frame it nicely. Of course both digital zoom and cropping that much and enlarging introduces pixellation to the stage where the photo loses any decent quality.
I have had a look at the Sigma 500mm lenses as well, and I see what you mean about the size of it! However, I have checked Ebay, and they are being sold in the UK at £469 and from Hong Kong for £360 including delivery.
I see that the 450D has a 1.6X conversion factor - is this as simple as this sounds to increase the magnification further?
Or, would I see the benefit over what I have (zoomwise) with a 400mm lens with the 1.6X conversion of the 450D?
I would do some googling on the lens and the keyword 'birding' before buying as I suggested it having seen it mentioned but would hate for it to not meet your expectations. That is a massive amount of zoom so stability will be an issue, especially if trying to follow a moving bird. Not to mention the weight. Also it doesn't have image stabilisation which isn't necessarily a prob if you are working on a tripod.
http://www.lincsbirder.co.uk/equipment.htm
Some absolutely superb british wildlife shots. By some freaky co-incidence his kit is the Canon 400D and of course the 500mm Sigma lens and he also uses a Canon 400mm lens.
Each photo is footnoted with the exact equipment used, so I can really see the difference. I can say without a shadow of a doubt the Bigma is going to do what I want easily. In fact, the 400mm Canon lens also seems to have almost the same amount of zoom. It also seems to me that the Canon 400mm lens produces photos which are insanely sharp - almost a 3D quality, whereas although the Bigma is good, it loses a little bit.
Needless to say, this guys photos look like night and day compared to the ones on my £180 camera!
What is heartening though is the guy says he has only started photography recently, and at least that is proof that for the price of a Canon 400D and the 400mm lens I can do what I want to do!
The question is whether I wait for the benefits of the 450D and whether I go for the Bigma. I suppose the benefit of the Bigma will be I should be able to go to one of the hides at Martin Mere and look over the wetlands and should be able to actually see something.
Felters said:
According to my chum who "does" a lot of wildlife you need to spend a lot of time and effort on sorting out your "hide". And then you need to spend a fortune on hardware... his thing is photographing deer and he uses a Nikon D3 with a 400mm f2.8 lens. All up that'll be £10k - thank you!
That said you might get lucky - robins always seem pretty tame to me and I guess one might get close enough.
I was going to attempt to rip your reply the shreds but i googled your mates items instead and to say i am utterly gobsmacked is an understatement.That said you might get lucky - robins always seem pretty tame to me and I guess one might get close enough.
I just googled a Nikon D3 @ £3400 & a 400mm f2.8 @ £5000. So the rest must of gone towards his flash or his tripod set up.
Jesus christ!!! - i paid £385 for my canon 350d & £425 for my 70-200mm f4 L USM.
I think my price range is more to the latter of those above!
On that note, before you laugh at this question, have a look at the example shots, for £150 is this going to be any good, or is that a silly question!?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1200mm-2000mm-D90-Telescope-...
On that note, before you laugh at this question, have a look at the example shots, for £150 is this going to be any good, or is that a silly question!?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1200mm-2000mm-D90-Telescope-...
JustinP1 said:
I think my price range is more to the latter of those above!
On that note, before you laugh at this question, have a look at the example shots, for £150 is this going to be any good, or is that a silly question!?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1200mm-2000mm-D90-Telescope-...
I somehow doubt its the answer.On that note, before you laugh at this question, have a look at the example shots, for £150 is this going to be any good, or is that a silly question!?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1200mm-2000mm-D90-Telescope-...
Its f13 for a start , which means its slow and wont autofocus. It'll also need to be on a very steady tripod (prolly with a cable release) and will be almost impossible to aim at anything unless its predetermined.
And thats without considering picture quality.
Canon make a 1200mm f5.6 but its $99,0000 US.
Thats what I thought, thanks for the advice!
At £150 including delivery from Hong Kong I may give it a punt just to see what I can get from it as realistically a lens which costs more than my car may not be feasable.
I guess if I can get it stable on my tripod and get the focus right on a single 'target area' and wait for something to move into it it may work, or for especially slow moving objects!
Other than that my other way of thinking was to scrap that idea and go for a decent quality 400mm or even 300mm lens. The Canon specs say that with an 'EF' lens the focal length is effectively multiplied by 1.6X.
So, what does 'EF' mean...? Please excuse my complete lack of knowledge!
Secondly, am I right in thinking or an I nieve in thinking that lets say I got a Canon 300mm EF lens, this would effectively give me 480mm which is pretty much the focal length of the Bigma 500mm lens? Or is there more to it than that?
At £150 including delivery from Hong Kong I may give it a punt just to see what I can get from it as realistically a lens which costs more than my car may not be feasable.
I guess if I can get it stable on my tripod and get the focus right on a single 'target area' and wait for something to move into it it may work, or for especially slow moving objects!
Other than that my other way of thinking was to scrap that idea and go for a decent quality 400mm or even 300mm lens. The Canon specs say that with an 'EF' lens the focal length is effectively multiplied by 1.6X.
So, what does 'EF' mean...? Please excuse my complete lack of knowledge!
Secondly, am I right in thinking or an I nieve in thinking that lets say I got a Canon 300mm EF lens, this would effectively give me 480mm which is pretty much the focal length of the Bigma 500mm lens? Or is there more to it than that?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff