All in the lens choice?... Need to pick a camera first!

[squishy]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

Like yourself I mainly take images of plants and don't need high ISO performance. ISO 800 is plenty fast enough and I'm usually using 100. I also come from an era where pushing Kodak 400 ASA Tri-X to ASA 800 was considered exotic!

I've noticed that 'High ISO' is now the new 'Megapixels' as a must have, and that unless you can shoot clean ISO 64000 your gear can't be any good!

I also try to keep in mind the adage that a picture taken on a dull day will always be a dull picture - it's quite often true. You can't beat plenty of light to make an image sparkle!

Jim

I said DONT start

I was joking. I completely agree with you that there is too much marketing hype about ISO, and as long as you can get a good picture out of 800 and a salvageable one out of 1600, that's as good as you'll really need. If you need ISO 6400 for a picture, you should go home, cos it's getting dark!

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by johnf3f

Many of you have commented about the importance of the lens quality over the bells and whistles of the camera and I heartily concur. However when one buys a camera one also "buys" into a system, and the two most flexible (widest ranging) systems are Nikon & Canon by a long way. I personally prefer Canon and bought into it when Nikon DSLRS were not competetive, this is no longer the case as the current Nikons are excellent in their respective price ranges. Both these sytems offer the widest ranges of budget to professional lenses as well as being the best served by third party lens manufacturers.
I personally would HIGHLY recommend the 40d, no I do not/have not owned one - I went from 20d to 50d to 1dMkiv, however I have used the 40d quite a bit and at it's current used prices it's simply the the best bang for buck camera available IMHO. Yes there are better cameras out there but the 40d will produce VERY good A3+ prints with minimal editing and a very high keeper rate on fast moving subjects. It's also very intuitive to use and small and light - try a 1d!
P.S. to LYNSEYA - don't worry too much about the weight of the camera, lenses for wildlife photography get HEAVY!

Fully in agreement!

I was a dedicated Canon man in the days of 35mm SLR, but my first (and still current after almost three years) DSLR, was/is a Nikon D80 - (Right camera at the right price, at the right time). Consequently, I'm now bought into the Nikon system.

I see no value in constantly upgrading, and the D80 continues to do everything I need and more.

My outlook on lenses: - Whichever of the major camera manufacturer's you decide to go with, (and also independents like Sigma), will produce all the quality you will ever need.

Unless your photography is going to be limited solely to photographing test charts, or the viewing of comparison shots at high magnification, you will be very hard pressed indeed, to determine any difference at all in the image quality of photos taken with such lenses.

Just look at some of the many images on WAB taken with Sigma lenses, which are by no means expensive when compared to the equivalents by the likes of Nikon/Canon/Olympus etc. I defy anyone to say that the quality produced by such lenses is nothing less than exceptional.

Go with what feels right in your hands, and what you can afford, and be happy with your choice. Rest assured that whatever you eventually choose will give you a lifetime's worth of images that will be practically indistinguishable from the most expensive of kit.

Good luck with your choice.
Regards,
Mike.

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

My outlook on lenses: - Whichever of the major camera manufacturer's you decide to go with, (and also independents like Sigma), will produce all the quality you will ever need.

Unless your photography is going to be limited solely to photographing test charts, or the viewing of comparison shots at high magnification, you will be very hard pressed indeed, to determine any difference at all in the image quality of photos taken with such lenses.

Just look at some of the many images on WAB taken with Sigma lenses, which are by no means expensive when compared to the equivalents by the likes of Nikon/Canon/Olympus etc. I defy anyone to say that the quality produced by such lenses is nothing less than exceptional.

Go with what feels right in your hands, and what you can afford, and be happy with your choice. Rest assured that whatever you eventually choose will give you a lifetime's worth of images that will be practically indistinguishable from the most expensive of kit.

Good luck with your choice.
Regards,
Mike.

Couldn't agree more. Still didn't stop me from getting another Canon 400mm though. That was more to do with me being daft as much as anything else.
I know the Canon gives me more fine detail, BUT, and it's a big BUT, I still regard some of the shots I took with my Bigma to be some of the best I've got.
For that reason I'll never get rid of the Bigma.