New member needing some Camera advice.

[ianjmc]

Hi all, I'm a new member here so firstly hello to everyone.

I've got a question that I'm hoping some of the experienced folks on here can help me with.

But first a little background.... I bought my first SLR (a minolta 35mm) about 10 years ago. I didn't use it a great deal so it spent most of it's time gathering dust. Then when Sony started producing it's own SLRs on the back of the Minolta takeover I thought I'd put my old lenses to some use and immediately bought an a100.

I quickly got in to it and realised that the old lenses weren't that great so started replacing them with new ones to the point that I've now got the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro, Sigma 10-20mm wideangle, Sigma 27-70mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 50-500mm. Likewise I upgraded the camera to the a700.

After spending a few years snapping everything in sight I've developed a real passion for wildlife photography. This in turn led me to a desire for a better telephoto lens, although the Sigma 50-500 does a very good job for the price I find that I almost always work at the 500mm end and I’m finding that f/6.3 simply isn’t fast enough for wildlife photos in anything but very bright light conditions.

So after all that waffle, here comes the point :-)

I want to focus my equipment towards wildlife photography, therefore I'm looking at the big primes such as a 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4. After a look around on the web it seems that this is not one of Sony's strengths. Sony themselves don't seem to go above 300mm and the prices are much more than the comparable Canon or Nikon offerings.

So I’ve now resigned myself to having to switch manufacturers to either Canon or Nikon.

I was originally looking at the Canon EOS 5d mkII but I’m a little worried about the relatively low burst rate of 3.9 fps. I then saw Canon advertising the upcoming EOS 7d with a claimed 8fps burst, but on a cropped sensor. Unfortunately I can’t afford to get the “best of both worlds” 1ds MkIII so I’m going to have to make a compromise.

I’m not decided on Canon or Nikon yet but the question I have seems to apply to both - in your opinion what is more important for wildlife shooting? Full Frame or Burst Rate?

My current leaning is towards full frame, Quality over quantity - I might miss some moments by taking less shots in a sequence but the ones I get will be of higher quality. But I'm very undecided.

Any advice/comments greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance.
Ian

[pressld2]

Welcome to WAB Ian! There are some good questions there but I suspect no hard and fast answers to any of 'em! We all have our own preferences and our own opinions on what's most important to us. So I'll kick off with my opinions anyway...

Firstly, full frame versus cropped sensor. I'm shooting with a Nikon D300 at present which has a 1.5x crop factor sensor. Personally I like this as it gives me extra reach which is great for most non-macro wildlife. My 80-400 behaves like a 120-600. As I still regularly find myself wishing I could get closer I would hate to sacrifice the "extra 200mm" by switching to a full frame sensor. The only downside in terms of image quality that I can see is at high ISO settings where cameras like the D3 and D700 really shine. If I could afford a 500mm prime then I'd want to hang a full frame sensor on the back of it - no question! But as I can't I prefer the cropped sensor.

When it comes to burst rate the D300 offers 6 frames per second (I could get this up to 8 by buying a different battery). The truth is I hardly ever use it though. These days I am shooting in 14bit raw which cuts the burst down to 3 fps. At one of his talks Andy Rouse said he wasn't keen on high burst rates because it tended to produce a nice and sharp first shot followed by a lot of soft ones caused by the mirror flapping up and down. My dislike of it stems mostly from the way it fills a 4 gig memory card in double quick time and leaves me with too many "similars" when downloading and editing.

As I said, these are just my personal preferences. There are plenty of people getting great shots using different kit and methods.

Dave P.

[NJP87]

Hi ianjmc and welcome to WAB.

You are right, sony doesn't seem to have much in the big primes, have you thought about the Minolta 600mm f/4 and Minolta AF 400mm f/4.5?

Don't know how easy they are to come buy but from what i have read they are superb lenses.

As for the FF versus burst rate, i'd go with a crop camera (For the extra reach, with good burst) something like the nikon d300.

Nick

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by ianjmc

Full Frame or Burst Rate?

I've never got a really good photo using any form of burst shot - but have achieved some perfectly acceptable ones Whereas I've attained some not so shabby shots using timed single frames

I too would be loath to give up the extra reach of a crop sensor for my Wildlife images but a different story for my Landscapes.......

[Ollie]

Well I would cetainly not want to give up my cropped sensor. 1.6x I believe on the Canon 40D I use. Like Dave, if I could afford a 500mm prime then yes a full frame would probably be the way to go but seeing as I use a 400mm prime the cropped sensor helps.

As for burst rate the 40D does around six or seven per second can't remember off hand and it's a feature that I use a lot and I don't seem to get soft shots after the first one as Dave mentioned, (quoting Andy Rouse I believe)

I'm not saying go for Canon, the choice is yours, but remember that whatever brand you choose it's the lens that counts more than anything else. A prime lens will always in my opinion at least give a better quality image regardless of it being a full frame or cropped sensor camera you happen to be using.

[RobSutton]

Originally Posted by Markulous

......

I too would be loath to give up the extra reach of a crop sensor for my Wildlife images but a different story for my Landscapes.......

Thats the route I took - Canon 40D for wildlife (mainly macro with a Sigma 150mm macro and a Canon 400mm f5.6 telephoto for the long range stuff) and a 5DmkII with 24-105mm for landscape work.

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by RobSutton

Thats the route I took - Canon 40D for wildlife (mainly macro with a Sigma 150mm macro and a Canon 400mm f5.6 telephoto for the long range stuff) and a 5DmkII with 24-105mm for landscape work.

I've gone 2nd best to that: Canon 20/30/40D for Wildlife (with Sigma 150-500mm OS which works well) and Sigma SD10/14 for macro/landscape (recently gone "back" and got the SD14 - great to get back to the wonderful results the Foveon gives!)

[ianjmc]

Thanks for all the comments everyone. Definitely looks like aps-c is favoured for the multiplier. Must admit I was a little worried about that, the a700 I currently use has a 1.5x multiplier and I usually have the sigma at 500mm (750). I was thinking I'd end up cropping my shots more in post processing with the higher resolution of whatever I go for allowing for that. Obviously the idea of having both a cropped and a full frame for different situations makes a lot of sense, so now it's just a case of buying in to the best brand for me.

I totally agree with the comment that the lens counts more than anything else and that's my main reason for switching brands. Although I'm sure that the lens support will improve for Sony, it's not going to improve fast enough for my needs. I know there's some good minolta glass still out there but I'm looking at investing in a new system for the future rather than having to rely on finding good second hand lenses.

The next choice will be which brand to buy into so I guess it's time for me to start bothering the camera shops for some trials.

I might hang on until the 7d is released it looks like it might be a nice compromise being a cropped sensor but still 18mp, will be interesting to find out how it handles noise at higher ISOs. Will also be interesting to see how Nikon responds.

Thanks again for all the advice everyone.

[Ian Gray]

hi Ian
I find myself in exactly the same position as you. I've got a similar setup, A700, Sigma 50-500mm and Sony 100mm macro. I've also considered the big change for exactly the same reason, but am also considering the Sony 300mm f2.8 with a 1.4x or 2x converter, or the Sigma 500mm which is also available for Sony with a bit of searching. Can't afford to either just yet but would like to know the outcome of your dilemma, please keep us updated.

Ian

[Geoff F]

I agree with what everybody else has said. There isn't really much difference between Canon and Nikon bodies so look at their range of lenses and see which suits you best.

But when the Canon 7D comes out you might find some real bargains on the 40D which is a well liked camera. A lot of photo enthusiast forum sites seem to think that the 7D is simply forcing too many pixels into a small sensor area and you won't get the expected quality; so I won't be the first to try one.

[ianjmc]

Ian - Yes I looked at the Sony 300mm f/2.8 but the cost puts me off. You could buy a canon or nikon 300 2.8 and a body for the same price as the lens only on the sony mount.

I'll let you know what I end up doing but tbh I'd come to a similar conclusion to what Geoff F has suggested. I'll grab a cheaper body such as the 40d when the 7d starts the flood of second hand bodies. Then I'll blow the big money on the glass and upgrade the body at a later date (perhaps when the 7d has proven itself).

[Elean0r]

Don't forget to also look at Pentax and Olympus. I know some specialist photographers who use those cameras with excellent results