PS
If you are consider the 100-400 or 80-400 zooms, I would prefer Canon for
the time being.
The Nikon lens is the old-fashioned screw driver focussing system, and hence
will focus slighlty more slowly than the Canon. However, Nikon has a 200-400
f/4 (my current favourite lens). Canon has no equivilent.
2008/12/9 Alistair McKeough <>
> Go to.a shop. Try the Nikon and the Canon. Go with whichever you prefer.
>
> Get the best lens you can afford and the cheapest body with a decent
> fps and autofocus system. Again - fiddle in store and you will work
> out what you like.
>
> I shoot Nikon but inherited a Canon 500 f/4 IS from my Dad so bought a
> body for it. I've taken over 20,000 photos with each of Nikon and
> Canon over the past 2 years. I prefer the ergonomics of the Nikon. The
> final output from each is equally good.
>
> Anyone who tells you one is "better" than the other is just imoosing a
> personal bias. They are as good as each other. The lenses are equally
> good. The cameras are equally good. Nikon tends to be less likely to
> "lock out" features on it's consumer models to maintain its pricing
> hierachy but that is the only major difference I can think of. If one
> is "better" at a particular price point it's just the stage of the
> product cycle and the other will be "better" again in a few months.
>
> So, in a nutshell, get Canon or Nikon. Buy the one that feels right in
> your hand.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/8/08, Paul Dodd <> wrote:
> > Bob,
> >
> > See my answers interleaved below. Please note, I use Nikon gear, Ruth, my
> > wife, uses Canon. In my opinion, they are the only two brands worth
> looking
> > at, simply because the of the lenses you will need for birding.
> >
> > Also check out http://www.dpreview.com/ for reviews of all cameras and
> > lenses - it is without doubt the most useful photographic review source
> on
> > the net.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Paul Dodd
> > Docklands, Victoria
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > On Behalf Of Bob Cook
> > Sent: Monday, 8 December 2008 10:32 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: [Birding-Aus] Digital SLR for bird photography - delete if no
> > interest!
> >
> > Oh well, what the Hell! I will open the subject again.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please quickly delete this message if you are not interested in cameras.
> >
> >
> >
> > Also, please reply directly if you think any reply might "clog up" the
> list.
> > However, I think some others may be interested.
> >
> >
> >
> > Obviously my major interest, from the point of getting best results for
> my
> > $$$'s, is bird and other wildlife photography, mostly land-based but also
> > occasional pelagic and occasional distant waders (they don't count as
> > land-based!). I am happy spend a bit more if it gives a significant
> > advantage. So you will understand what the key features will be, like
> > accurate focusing on small moving targets in poorer light, maintaining
> focus
> > on unidentified flying "objects", coping with light contrasts between
> > subject and background (I have never been able to get a good result with
> an
> > Egret more than 25 metres away against a dark background!), etc. I am
> sure
> > some of you can identify other key factors I should consider.
> >
> >
> >
> > I would like to hear some opinions / advice on moving to Digital SLR
> > equipment that is better than entry level, but not professional level. I
> > guess that means that, at best prices, I might spend $2500 to $3000 for
> body
> > & single lens. The questions I have include:
> >
> >
> >
> > * Opinion on Canon vs Nikon vs Olympus vs anything else in that
> > quality range. i.e. quality for $$$.
> >
> >>>> Either Nikon or Canon. Price is comparable.
> >
> >
> >
> > * Canon EOS40D vs EOS50D - why pay the extra few hundred $. I read
> > about the specification differences, but are they relevant to my needs?
> >
> >>>> For Canon, I'd spend the small amount of extra money for the 50D.
> >
> >
> >
> > * Nikon D80 vs D90 vs D300, same question.
> >
> >>>> Absolutely no question - the D300 is a BRILLIANT camera. The 56 spot
> > autofocus tracking is the outstanding feature of this camera.
> >
> >
> > * Lenses: I understand that Canon IS L is going to give much better
> > results for the extra $$ and Nikkor VR is well worth the extra money over
> a
> > "standard" lens.
> >
> >>>> As a keen amateur, you'll probably end up with the 400mm zoom - the
> > 100-400mm IS L for Canon, or the 80-400mm VR for Nikon. As a user of
> both, I
> > reckon the Canon lens is marginally better than the Nikon. I say this as
> a
> > Nikon user (I have the 80-400mm VR). There is no doubt that the IS/VR is
> > essential (and works well).
> >
> >
> > * Zoom, say 70 - 300 or 55 - 200, vs fixed telephoto, say 200mm or
> > 300mm (or more?). I understand the convenience & flexibility factors,
> but
> > what about the quality of results? Or is this really just a matter of
> the
> > lens quality overall?
> >
> >>>> For birding 400mm is the shortest that you'd want. See my comments
> > above.
> >
> >
> > * And what about using 1.4 or 2 times attachable tele-converter. Do
> > these impair the results, or again just make sure you get a
> tele-converter
> > of matching quality?
> >
> >>>> If you do use a teleconverter, spend the extra $ and get a REAL Canon
> or
> > Nikon, don't buy the third-party ones. We did a trip to Hong Kong using
> > Kenko teleconverters. All our shots were disappointingly soft - and that
> was
> > true for both Nikon and Canon.
> >
> >
> >
> > * What about the value of larger aperture (and larger $) lens, say
> > f2.8 vs f4 / f5.6? Do other camera / lens features compensate for not
> > having the larger aperture in poorer light? Or is more always better, if
> you
> > can afford it?
> >
> >>>> Oh yes. The faster lenses (larger apertures) are brilliant. These
> > usually are usually the domain of professionals though, because you'll
> pay
> > thousands for them. If you go this route, the 500mm IS/VR lens is a good
> > choice. Also this will work well with a teleconverter.
> >
> >
> > * What about the "Super-zooms", e.g. 18 - 200mm? Do they lose
> quality
> > of result at either extreme because they are trying to achieve too much?
> >
> >>>> Don't bother. Good if you get one with the body, otherwise don't
> bother.
> >
> >
> > * What about "other manufacturer" lenses, e.g. Sigma? Do they give
> > comparable results for less $$$?
> >
> >>>> You'd pay the same sort of money for a Sigma as you would for the
> camera
> > brand. Some photographers swear by them, others say stick to the camera
> > brand lenses. I prefer the camera brands.
> >
> >
> >
> > * What about Image Stabilisation in the lens vs in the body? What
> > advantages of either and why? I believe IS lens is the better way to go.
> >
> >>>> IS in the lens. However, I say that without ever having used IS in the
> > body of a DSLR.
> >
> >
> >
> > * Do the mid-range lenses, with IS, really allow you to shoot at
> > distance at, say 1/8 sec and slower, without tripod or similar support?
> >
> >>>> Yes. IS really does work.
> >
> >
> >
> > * Opinion on buying from reputable supplier in the U.S., e.g. B&H. I
> > think this is OK and prices look about 10% to 20% better on current US$
> vs
> > Aust Peso exchange rates.
> >
> >>>> I have bought from both B&H and Adorama. Both are reputable. Both are
> > prompt and the staff are helpful.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am not an expert, but want to develop my skills, knowledge and
> enjoyment
> > with equipment that will give me results that I will be happy with (does
> > that mean "compensates for my own shortcomings"???)
> >
> >>>> Canon 50D + 100-400 IS or Nikon D300 + 80-400 VR. Either setup will
> > allow you to both develop your skills and will be perfectly usable once
> you
> > are "skilled up".
> >
> >
> >
> > I also understand that location, preparation and patience are the best
> three
> > pieces of "equipment" to give the best results!
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks in anticipation for all contributions.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob Cook
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ===============================
> > www.birding-aus.org
> > birding-aus.blogspot.com
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> > send the message:
> > unsubscribe
> > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> > to:
> > ===============================
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.15/1835 - Release Date:
> 7/12/2008
> > 4:56 PM
> >
> > ===============================
> > www.birding-aus.org
> > birding-aus.blogspot.com
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> > send the message:
> > unsubscribe
> > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> > to:
> > ===============================
> >
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
>
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
