Photography on a budget

[mh68]

[quote=John D;306991]

Originally Posted by Royalist

and what is the cost??

John D

About 15 grand John

Mark H

[John D]

[quote=John D;306991]

Originally Posted by Royalist

OK Royalist as Mark points out Sigma makes a Zoom which is 200 -500mm f2.8 but how many folk can carry a 15kg lens + other equipment around for any real distance and what is the cost??

John D

Hi Royalist, the price of the Sigma 200-500mm f2.8 lens, the only lens within the spec you suggest, is around £16000.
I don't think this can be treated as 'Photography on a budget'.
Let's be realistic when giving advice!
John D

[lovfinion]

Originally Posted by DavyG

Congrats on your purchase, I hope you enjoy your Oly kit as much as I enjoy mine.

Due to the 2 x crop factor of Olympus sensors, the ZD 70-300 is the equivalent of a 140-600mm lens on a 35mm film camera.

Take time to learn about your camera, especially the in camera image stabilisation, it will be worthwhile.

If/when you decide you need other lenses, I can recommend the Sigma 150mm for macro work and the 50-500 (Bigma) as a zoom lens.

I look forward to seeing your pics.

Dave

Thanks some good advice there, my one question being a total photography beginner, when I see quotes like this

"the ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 70-300mm 1:4.0-5.6 lens offers an equivalent range of 140-600mm on a 35mm film camera"

Iis the e-510 a 35mm camera, I always though 35mm as beibng the old style SLR camera's?!? would appreciate someone clearing this up

[DavyG]

Originally Posted by lovfinion

Thanks some good advice there, my one question being a total photography beginner, when I see quotes like this

"the ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 70-300mm 1:4.0-5.6 lens offers an equivalent range of 140-600mm on a 35mm film camera"

Iis the e-510 a 35mm camera, I always though 35mm as beibng the old style SLR camera's?!? would appreciate someone clearing this up

You are correct, 35mm refers to film slr's, the E510 is not a 35mm camera.

As I understand it, if you fitted a 600mm lens to a 35mm camera and photographed an object, say 20m away, then fitted an Oly E series camera with a 300mm lens and photographed the same object at the same distance, the size of the object in each photograph would be the same.

It is confusing, the best advice I can give is to apply the basic principles of photography, use your imagination and have fun, don't worry to much about the techie stuff!

Please feel free to pm me if I can help in any way.

Dave

[lovfinion]

Ah so if I purchase a zuiko 70-300mm for my E510 thats exactly what I'll get, well on my budget that will have to sufice

[The Black Rabbit]

Plenty of proof on this site and others that is ENTIRELY possible to take very good wildlife photo's on a very limited budget indeed.

I find it so utterly tedious that people ask for advice on buying cameras / binoculars etc... on WAB, and the blinkered few tell them that they must spend £500 on binoculars (all the rest aren't worth buying) or £3000 on photography equipment (ditto).
Utter and complete nonsense.

What a larger budget does for your photography is just make it easier to take first-class (in terms of quality) photo's. People tend to forget that.
Thats very clear in my opinion.

As others have mentioned on this thread already, with a little imagination (under-utilised and under-rated amongst many "wildife-photographers with very expensive equipment), and a little more fieldcraft and time researching your subjects, you will enjoy your photography immensely and get decent results, spending, in effect, not a huge amount of money in the process.

As for the technical stuff, lenses, bodies etc... I have no legs to stand on giving out any advice on those subjects - so will leave it to the few that have...

TBR

[BruceP]

Briefly, we have 3 types of cameras: 35mm, medium format and plate cameras. There are other formats around such as the old 110 film format, but lets ignore them. Generally wildlife photographers require portability of equipment and a long lens, so the 35mm format has been used by most. The digital cameras that most people use are adapted and evolved from the 35mm cameras which means that many of the lenses bought to fit a Canon film camera such as the EOS 650 will also fit my Canon 40D.

35mm was a definate size, and therefore the focal length of a lens was the same whatever make of 35mm camera it was attached to. Digital cameras on the other hand use different types of sensors (CCD, CMOS, Faveon(?sp)) and different cameras use different sizes of these sensors. If you look at the Canon range, you often see a 1.6x crop factor talked about because they use a sensor smaller than the size of 35mm film, but other (more expensive) Canon cameras have a sensor the same size as the 35 mm film, so therefore have no magnification factor.

With the focal length of a lens to be meaningful, we need to describe its effective focal length against a standard sensor, so we always refer to it effective focal length compared with 35mm film.

Therefore (assuming the lens is compatible with film, as some new lenses are only digital compatibale), a 300mm 35mm lens will take the same image as a 450mm 35mm lens when used on a digital nikon (1.5x crop factor); as a 480mm on a Canon 40D (1.6x crop factor) and you would have needed a whopping 600mm lens on your old film camera to take the same picture that the 300mm lens will take on the four thirds system sensor that you find in the Olympus which has a 2x crop factor.

The issue of smaller sensors is an increase in noise as the signals from one sensor point (pixel) bleeds into neighbouring ones, which is why a big sensor with less pixels often gives a better image than a small sensor with the same number of pixels. I've been playing with the Olympus E510 to see what it is like, and I find that noise becomes a problem at a lower ISO. With my Canons I like to shoot no higher than 400ISO as I find noise is becoming a problem at 800ISO, but with the olympus that level of problem noise occurs at the 400ISO setting. Having said that, the 2x magnification factor is very useful.

[lovfinion]

Ok going to ask one last question, whilst browsing Ebay for lens I came across these, they seem awfully inexpensive so wanted to ask you guys opinion of them..

650-2600mm Zoom Lens for Olympus E3 E410 E500 E510 on eBay, also, Objektive, Foto Camcorder (end time 20-Jul-08 13:21:52 BST)

500-1000mm Zoom Lens for Olympus E3 E410 E500 E510 on eBay, also, For Digital SLR, Camera Lenses, Photography (end time 20-Jul-08 13:19:10 BST)

500mm 1000mm Zoom Lens for Olympus E3 E410 E500 E510 on eBay, also, For Digital SLR, Camera Lenses, Photography (end time 20-Jul-08 13:20:58 BST)


Quiye possibly total rubbish, but best asking

[wildlifesnapper]

Probably, I'm guessing the glass will be poor quality, but having never used one ??
I wouldn't advise spending money on one though

neil

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by BruceP

Briefly, we have 3 types of cameras: 35mm, medium format and plate cameras. There are other formats around such as the old 110 film format, but lets ignore them. Generally wildlife photographers require portability of equipment and a long lens, so the 35mm format has been used by most. The digital cameras that most people use are adapted and evolved from the 35mm cameras which means that many of the lenses bought to fit a Canon film camera such as the EOS 650 will also fit my Canon 40D.

35mm was a definate size, and therefore the focal length of a lens was the same whatever make of 35mm camera it was attached to. Digital cameras on the other hand use different types of sensors (CCD, CMOS, Faveon(?sp)) and different cameras use different sizes of these sensors. If you look at the Canon range, you often see a 1.6x crop factor talked about because they use a sensor smaller than the size of 35mm film, but other (more expensive) Canon cameras have a sensor the same size as the 35 mm film, so therefore have no magnification factor.

With the focal length of a lens to be meaningful, we need to describe its effective focal length against a standard sensor, so we always refer to it effective focal length compared with 35mm film.

Therefore (assuming the lens is compatible with film, as some new lenses are only digital compatibale), a 300mm 35mm lens will take the same image as a 450mm 35mm lens when used on a digital nikon (1.5x crop factor); as a 480mm on a Canon 40D (1.6x crop factor) and you would have needed a whopping 600mm lens on your old film camera to take the same picture that the 300mm lens will take on the four thirds system sensor that you find in the Olympus which has a 2x crop factor.

The issue of smaller sensors is an increase in noise as the signals from one sensor point (pixel) bleeds into neighbouring ones, which is why a big sensor with less pixels often gives a better image than a small sensor with the same number of pixels. I've been playing with the Olympus E510 to see what it is like, and I find that noise becomes a problem at a lower ISO. With my Canons I like to shoot no higher than 400ISO as I find noise is becoming a problem at 800ISO, but with the olympus that level of problem noise occurs at the 400ISO setting. Having said that, the 2x magnification factor is very useful.

Now that IS interesting.
Even on "trusted" review sites, the visible noise on the Olympus is often suggested to be no problem at 800ISO equivalent.


TBR

[Royalist]

Yes. Well everyone has confirmed what I have already said. In effect cut your cloth to suit your pocket. Not many of us can afford the optimum and then still have to carry a colossal weight around.
BUT!!! No one has mentioned shutter speed and everyone seems to be going for smaller apertures. So if you like underexposed pictures that is fine. Personally, I cannot see how you can disregard aperture. I am using a Sigma 80 - 400mm Zoom F3.5-F4.5(at 400mm) on a Nikon DSLR. It is OK, but only just, but not for distant waders etc. The light loss at 400mm is one stop and with teleconverter (2X) a total of three stops. This is too much for the image stabiliser even on a sunny day.
Lets stop this talk of effective focal length compared with 35mm cameras. We presumably are all using DSLRs and that is what we are
comparing with.

Roy

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Royalist

Yes. Well everyone has confirmed what I have already said. In effect cut your cloth to suit your pocket. Not many of us can afford the optimum and then still have to carry a colossal weight around.
BUT!!! No one has mentioned shutter speed and everyone seems to be going for smaller apertures. So if you like underexposed pictures that is fine. Personally, I cannot see how you can disregard aperture. I am using a Sigma 80 - 400mm Zoom F3.5-F4.5(at 400mm) on a Nikon DSLR. It is OK, but only just, but not for distant waders etc. The light loss at 400mm is one stop and with teleconverter (2X) a total of three stops. This is too much for the image stabiliser even on a sunny day.
Lets stop this talk of effective focal length compared with 35mm cameras. We presumably are all using DSLRs and that is what we are
comparing with.

Roy

Roy - Many on this site do not use DSLRs but bridges ("point and shoots" as they are disparagingly called by some). But in common with most magazines etc... one can't mention bridges these days without having their drawbacks rammed down your throat! Never mind eh?!

Doug

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Royalist

Y
Lets stop this talk of effective focal length compared with 35mm cameras. We presumably are all using DSLRs and that is what we are
comparing with.

There are 2 reasons why it is useful to still compare focal lengths with those on 35mm cameras (a) because many of us grew up with those and hence it is helpful to convert focal lengths into something we can relate to and (b) in order to compare effective focal lengths of digital cameras that have different sensor sizes you need to convert to a common denominator. 'Full frame' sensors are still 35mm so that is the obvious yardstick.

Matt

[BruceP]

Originally Posted by Royalist

BUT!!! No one has mentioned shutter speed and everyone seems to be going for smaller apertures. So if you like underexposed pictures that is fine. Personally, I cannot see how you can disregard aperture.
Roy

Shutter speed and aperture is not directly to do with underexposed photos. Underexposure is not letting enough light hit the sensor, and that is down to the level of available light; the ISO; the Aperture and the shutter speed all being balanced. Using the wrong shutter speed or aperture is the fault of the photographer, not the lens. Buying more expensive lenses such as 300mm f2.8 does not stop underexposure, it merely means that you can get a correct exposure in lower light levels, but at the expense of weight.

In a few weeks time. i'm heading of to the Kalahari desert and my 300mm f2.8 will be staying at home and i'll take a 300mm f4 instead. I don't expect my photo's to be underexposed by one stop as a result of that choice. I will have enough light, and much less weight to carry around.

Originally Posted by Royalist

I am using a Sigma 80 - 400mm Zoom F3.5-F4.5(at 400mm) on a Nikon DSLR. It is OK, but only just, but not for distant waders etc. The light loss at 400mm is one stop and with teleconverter (2X) a total of three stops. This is too much for the image stabiliser even on a sunny day.
Roy

Imaging stabilisation isn't useful for moving objects, and you seems to be mixing this up with getting high enough a shutter speed to get a sharp image.
I wouldn't recomend that lens with a 2x TC as it means you can't autofocus and get a high shutter speed without setting your ISO really high where noise will be a major problem. You really need to buy a longer lens, get closer, accept the shot as a record, or try again another day which is what I do when I can't fill enough of the frame with the target object.

Originally Posted by Royalist

Lets stop this talk of effective focal length compared with 35mm cameras. We presumably are all using DSLRs and that is what we are comparing with.
Roy

What DSLR are you comparing with as they have a variety of sensor sizes, so for people to look and learn they need to understand that a picture taken with a 500mm on a four thirds sensor will not appear the same with their 500mm lens on a full frame digital sensor. In fact they would need a 1000mm lens to take the same picture, but both are using DSLRs.

We need a point of reference and 35mm is the accepted standard. If you don't wish to use that reference then fine, but for those that understand the issue, then it remains the best reference point.

[lovfinion]

Ok finally decided I could stretch to a slightly better Lens & opted for this, to go with the E-510..

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lens.../135-400mm.htm

it mentions its compatible with FOUR THIRDS

I've spent more than I could initially afford, but hopefully all for the greater good..
I'm purely a beginner, I know alot about birds though, having spent 20 years watching them in various habitats, so hoping this will put me in a good position when photographing them...

[John D]

Very well put Matt and Bruce.
I hope it will clarify the issues/facts questioned by some people.

John D

[mh68]

Originally Posted by BruceP

The issue of smaller sensors is an increase in noise as the signals from one sensor point (pixel) bleeds into neighbouring ones, which is why a big sensor with less pixels often gives a better image than a small sensor with the same number of pixels. I've been playing with the Olympus E510 to see what it is like, and I find that noise becomes a problem at a lower ISO. With my Canons I like to shoot no higher than 400ISO as I find noise is becoming a problem at 800ISO, but with the olympus that level of problem noise occurs at the 400ISO setting. Having said that, the 2x magnification factor is very useful.

I think too much is made of "noise" these days. We seem to have forgotten how grainy some films could be once you reached 400asa, now we can get comparable results shooting at 1600iso or even higher.
When I was still fishing, and writing for a monthly magazine, I always shot with Kodak 64 asa slide film for it`s fine grain and detail,to get the best reproduction in print.With the digital gear i`m using now,I rarely drop below 400iso as there`s little need.
Obviously if noise is destroying fine detail then its best avoided,and the various types of digital camera differ in this respect, but provided I`m close to the subject i`ll happily shoot at 1600iso,sometimes even 3200iso with my 20D.It`s only when pixel-peeping that the noise looks unsightly, reduced down to viewable sizes (which is what most of us do ) the noise is considerably less obvious.These days i`d far rather have a sharp, crisp shot with a little noise, than have to bin a shot due to unneccessarily restricting myself to lower iso`s for fear of a bit of noise being present.Even pro`s like Andy Rouse say its better to get the shot and it be a bit noisy, than to miss it due to restricting yourself to slow iso`s/shutter speeds.

Mark H

[Royalist]

Originally Posted by DavyG

Congrats on your purchase, I hope you enjoy your Oly kit as much as I enjoy mine.

Due to the 2 x crop factor of Olympus sensors, the ZD 70-300 is the equivalent of a 140-600mm lens on a 35mm film camera.

Take time to learn about your camera, especially the in camera image stabilisation, it will be worthwhile.

If/when you decide you need other lenses, I can recommend the Sigma 150mm for macro work and the 50-500 (Bigma) as a zoom lens.

I look forward to seeing your pics.

Dave

I too use the Sigma 150mm macro and I am very pleased with it. A friend has a 180mm and he is not too happy with the depth of field. I think I chose the right one.
I have also just exchanged my Sigma 80-400mm with stabilisation for a 120-400 Sigma HSM (ultra quiet focusing). Not yet tried it in the field, but have high hopes. This was as a result of honing my stalking skills and then being let down by the noise of the lens focusing when closer to the subject.

I would never be able to afford a something to 500mm at F2.8, nor would I ever want to carry the weight.
Happy clicking
Roy