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
$$$'s, is bird and other wildlife photography, mostly land-based but
also
occasional pelagic and occasional distant waders (they don't count as
land-based!). I am happy spend a bit more if it gives a significant
advantage. So you will understand what the key features will be, like
accurate focusing on small moving targets in poorer light,
maintaining focus
on unidentified flying "objects", coping with light contrasts between
subject and background (I have never been able to get a good result
with an
Egret more than 25 metres away against a dark background!), etc. I
am sure
some of you can identify other key factors I should consider.
I would like to hear some opinions / advice on moving to Digital SLR
equipment that is better than entry level, but not professional
level. I
guess that means that, at best prices, I might spend $2500 to $3000
for body
& single lens. The questions I have include:
* Opinion on Canon vs Nikon vs Olympus vs anything else in that
quality range. i.e. quality for $$$.
* Canon EOS40D vs EOS50D - why pay the extra few hundred $. I read
about the specification differences, but are they relevant to my
needs?
* Nikon D80 vs D90 vs D300, same question.
* Lenses: I understand that Canon IS L is going to give much better
results for the extra $$ and Nikkor VR is well worth the extra money
over a
"standard" lens.
* Zoom, say 70 - 300 or 55 - 200, vs fixed telephoto, say 200mm or
300mm (or more?). I understand the convenience & flexibility
factors, but
what about the quality of results? Or is this really just a matter
of the
lens quality overall?
* And what about using 1.4 or 2 times attachable tele-converter. Do
these impair the results, or again just make sure you get a tele-
converter
of matching quality?
* What about the value of larger aperture (and larger $) lens, say
f2.8 vs f4 / f5.6? Do other camera / lens features compensate for not
having the larger aperture in poorer light? Or is more always
better, if you
can afford it?
* What about the "Super-zooms", e.g. 18 - 200mm? Do they lose quality
of result at either extreme because they are trying to achieve too
much?
* What about "other manufacturer" lenses, e.g. Sigma? Do they give
comparable results for less $$$?
* 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.
* 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?
* 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 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"???)
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:
===============================
